'That Bible I Mean to Follow'

Thank you for your eloquent post and for your defense of the civil rights of homosexuals, and your understanding of the history of cherrypicking biblical passages to twist the bible to support such things as slavery. I pray that soon Christians will look back with embarassment at the way homosexuals have been treated in the name of religion.

Comparing homosexuality with slavery is a red herring, because nowhere in the Bible does it forbid outlawing slavery.

Additionally, we still have slavery in the United States that is permitted by the 13th amendment. It's called prison labor.

The Bible and Tradition, however, universally condemn homosexual acts as contrary to God's law. Liberals like hiding behind the subjective myth of sexual "orientation," but it still falls into the category of passions.

>>If it is true that homosexuality is not "OK" because we are would not be here, then why has the gay characteristic always been present with heterosexuality and bisexuality throughout all of time -- at least 3,000 years of written recordation -- which is nothing compared to geologic timescales? Your reasonsing is faulty.

This argument is irrational and frankly irrelevant. Human passions such as incest, drunkeness,etc., still exist, so using your logic the Bible is wrong in condemning them too.

>>You are reading a homophobic and heterosexist bias into the texts and drawing incorrect conclusions by it. You are not alone in this and that is a big problem that requires redressing.

Nice postmodern mumbo jumbo. Whenever you read a text, you have to ask yourself how it would have been understood within the context of a particular culture, in this case ancient Jewish. I would say it is you who are reading a pro-homosexual bias into the scriptural texts that would have made the Maccabees blush. All of Judaism always condemned homosexuality until the 20th century.

>>You're right it is a moral issue. To denigrate, disparage and condemn any persons for their innate being is morally wrong.

Aren't you being a bit judgmental here? Using your logic, then it is morally wrong to condemn psychopaths who do evil because it is part of their nature. How can we judge psychopaths like Adolf Hitler, considering that his desire to kill the Jews was part of his nature? The issue here comes down to the fact the Bible says we can judge a person's passions as wrong and contrary to God's law.

I love gay logic, because it is pure irrationality.

Your post is self-referentially immoral. It is interesting that you not only do not recognize this, but assert the opposite. You need remedial reasoning study.

>>More homoarrogance. Oh the superiority of your arrogant, small-minded intellect.

What you do is predetermine the conclusion of the "wrongness" of homosexuality and then ignore all evidence that does not support this view and hyper-inflate the paltry obsolete evidence beyond its reasonable usefulness.

>>The only thing about progress is that it inevitably becomes obsolete itself. All of the "scientific" studies supporting the "morality" of homosexuality are self-referential and are poltical in nature. Your views hopefully will become outdated and irrelevant.

The science is settled. Gay persons are born gay just as straight persons are born straight.

>>The science isn't settled unless you believe that politics should determine reason. There isn't one iota of incontrovertible evidence that homosexuals are born that way.
Your post is invalidated by this simple fact. I am not surprised you are not aware of it, yet it is so.

Homosexuality is a wrong lifestyle according to the Christian Religion, your post May 19, 2007 12:56 AM.

The science is conclusive. All persons are born with the sexual identity they possess. You are in error.

If it is true that homosexuality is not "OK" because we are would not be here, then why has the gay characteristic always been present with heterosexuality and bisexuality throughout all of time -- at least 3,000 years of written recordation -- which is nothing compared to geologic timescales? Your reasonsing is faulty.

You are reading a homophobic and heterosexist bias into the texts and drawing incorrect conclusions by it. You are not alone in this and that is a big problem that requires redressing.

You're right it is a moral issue. To denigrate, disparage and condemn any persons for their innate being is morally wrong. Your post is self-referentially immoral. It is interesting that you not only do not recognize this, but assert the opposite. You need remedial reasoning study.

What you do is predetermine the conclusion of the "wrongness" of homosexuality and then ignore all evidence that does not support this view and hyper-inflate the paltry obsolete evidence beyond its reasonable usefulness. Your case is not proved and worse it is crumbling beneath your feet.

The science is settled. Gay persons are born gay just as straight persons are born straight.

Your post is invalidated by this simple fact. I am not surprised you are not aware of it, yet it is so.

sw

Hey guys,

Dr. Clayton Crockett of the University of Central Arkansas is a professor of comparative world religions, contemporary deconstructivist philosophy and political activism. This summer a chapter of his entitled "Jeb Stuart's Revenge: The Civil War, the Religious Right and American Fascism" will be published. He successfully synthesizes both theses -- Michael Ruse & Chris Hedges -- from a solid scholarly theological prespective. He affirms three forces that Cornel West proposed in "Democracy Matters" of 2004.

There is definitely something powerful and resonant you have brought forward to this line of thinking.

sw

Why Homosexuality is not okay:
- If homosexuality was a correct way of life, we would not be here today. It is as simple as saying that the parts do not fit. It is common sense, males and males or females and females can not reproduce, therefore that lifestyle would have led the human race into extinction, if it would have been tolerated.
- So why should we encourage or "tolerate" this behavior? All it will lead to is the destruction of the human race.
- the foundation of humanity has continued through the 5000=years (scientifically) on the basis of heterosexuality. It can not be denied that no matter what God or what way this Earth was created, heterosexuality, has sustained and continued life on earth for ALL SPECIES.

The defining factor that makes the human race superior to all races, is the fact that we humans know the difference from wrong and right. Animals do not. You can not compare humans, (that is moral and decent humans) to animals, because animals are stupid. humans are not animals, we are humans which is why we have been the strongest and smartest form of life on the planet.

Homosexuals are acting like animals in the sense that they only listen to their bodies sexual impulses, totally ignoring what is right from wrong. We have already found that if homosexuality was right, we would not be here, but since we are here, that makes homosexuality the wrong lifestyle.

-the institution of the family, the traditional family is the correct way of life, shown and proven through thousands of years of life on Earth.

Now if you bring religion into it, the christian bible clearly defies and denounces homosexuality. Throughout the bible, many references are made to sexual immorality and homosexual prostitutes, as being wrong and that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God, Heaven. Read 1st corinthians:6, and Tell me that what I just said is not true.

Many people refute this fact, saying that aren't Christians supposed to love all people and accept all people?

The answer is yes. As a christian, it is our duty to love all, including homosexuals. But, that does not mean that as christians we should tolerate their lifestyle. As christians, we are supposed to help these people. As we know, from clear and precise scripture, homosexuals will not go to heaven, so it is our job to help them to pursue a healthy lifestyle: heterosexuality. That is where the love and forgivness of Christ comes into play, he loves all people, even if they sin and turn from his way, but he does not forgive those who do not try to be forgiven, those who do not try to change. That is the christian mission in the lifestyle of homosexuality, to help homosexuals to change.
-For example: as a christian, I can have a gay friend, a friend I dearly cherish, but as a christian, it is my duty to extend the love and forgiveness of God, and try to help my gay friend to change. You can love a gay or lesbian as a human, a person, but you cannot accept their lifestyle.

Many try to refute this argument by saying that homosexuals are born the way that they are. No they choose it. If you, as a christian, accept homosexuality, and believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are being a hypocrite. Why would your loving God, who loves everyone and everything, who, as you believe created the universe and everything in it, say that homosexuality is wrong and denounce it, and then create homosexuals? Are you saying that God, your God, who created everything did not know what he created? So he didn't know that he created homosexuals, yet says that their lifestyle is sinful? how Dare you confuse the living word of God. Homosexuals are not born gay, if you are a christian, you can not believe that they are, because why would God make homosexuals and say that their way of life is wrong? He wouldn't because he loves all of his creation. He just gives his creation free will, and that is why homosexuals choose to be gay.
-And if you want to bring science into it, there is no clear scientific evidence that declares the cause of homosexuality in humans or animals.

These are all reasons why gay unions or homosexuality in general is not okay. This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue, and issue of right or wrong. They question you need to ask yourseleves is what is right? And very clearly, for a christian: the bible declares homosexuality wrong, as a member of another faith: I'm sure their is some peice of data in your books denying homosexuality, and for atheists or people who don't follow a common or specific religion: common sense shows the truth and living proof of life.

Thank You

...Im no expert but my belief is God so loved THE WORLD he gave his ONLY son...all he asks in return is that we simply BELIEVE in him and his word...We are all sinners..thats a fact.period end of discussion. God KNOWS whats in our hearts...Faith is just that...Faith,,why try and make it so complicated? Just beleive...just have faith...simple really..apply the golden rule in all aspects of your life and do unto others as you would have them do unto you...dont make it all complicated..please just love one another and more importantly Love GOD...its really quite simple..I am gay...I did NOT "choose" to be so...i know it is sinful and thus i have decided to "not practice" this behavior any longer...doesnt mean i am no longer gay...simply means I am no longer "sexual"...I try to be tolerent of everyone and everything and I truly forgive men who have molested me in my youth.mostly men from churches i attended who were married with children who stood on the pulpit every sunday condeming homosexual behavior...but in forgiving them I found my way back to God almighty and the TRUTH of his word... I simply "BELIEVE" in God and I know he knows my heart and i am comforted in that greatly..I have read every post on here and in doing so was inclined to respond and simply state dont fight and argue over this or anything for that matter...please...If you truly know GOD and trust and believe in him sincerely then you KNOW his desire is for us to merely love him and one another ...it REALLY is that simple.
Peace and much love my brothers and sisters.

Rather than get nasty and uptight, let's keep our perspctive as human beings on these issues, and bear in mind the Golden Rule:
"Bong Hits for Jesus!"

There are two issues that have to be resolved before this mess can be settled.

1. Can you be defined as Homosexual without committing homosexual acts?

What does it mean to be "Gay"? Who determines status? Which leads into point 2.

2. Is being gay in any part biological?

Most people would agree that if ANY part of being homosexual is biological then it's no different from any other ethnic minority. Nobody should be condemned for genetics.

If on the other hand if being homosexual has NO biological component and it's a choice of behavior that determines status, then others are free to associate a moral position (possibly based in religion) on that person's behavior.

Maurie Beck - Soory to be so tardy in responding to your post. I am not familiar with Michale Ruse but I will follow up and do some reading. Thank you. James Anderson

Danny no problem, I wanted to se how things had gone:)

Mike,

Glad to see you came back.

Like I was saying before you left, I certainly meant no offense...although sarcasm can undo my sincerity at times.

Yes, things certainly have had thier ups and downs in here. But it is good that things have levelled out.

CB,

I know it's late over there. Hope you are able to get the baby to sleep so you and your wife can get some sleep.

Peace be with you all.

Hello all,

My apologies for being more absent than normal; our little girl is teething and she's quite miserable. Shame, the poor thing doesn't know why she is miserable and cannot communicate her feelings.

You know, I picked her up out of her cot today and she placed both her little hands on my shoulders, looked me straight in the eye and smiled at me, the first time she's done something like that. Make no mistake, she's daddy's little girl, but that unconditional acceptance of me as her father made me realise I have alot to be thankful for, and alot to live up to. It is easy to have the respect and love of my congregation, since they don't know me intimately and only see me in a formal or semi-formal setting. The approval I truly seek is that of God, and of my family. If, at the end of the day my wife not only loves me, BUT, likes and respects me as a person then I know I'm on the right track. The same for my little girl; my father's a pastor of great wisdom and insight and I know that while he had/s his faults, I still love and respect him. I want my little girl to say the same about me.

Why am I saying this; my attitude was TOTALLY wrong and now I'm on the opposite spectrum tonight; I was hard-assed yesterday and today, and now I'm berating myself for being such an idiot.

Guys, Bible knowledge is nothing if not done with love, Paul says...the greatest of these is love...(paraphrase). I have learnt a great lesson. I think I will always be firm in nature, but, I did a self-test last week. I did Dr. Phil's test where you can ascertain for yourself what your score is in relation to how others perceive you. I scored a 56! Now, here's part of the description of that score: others see you as exciting, highly volatile, someone who's quick to make decisions although they are not always the right ones etc. I realised that I needed to work on some of my "softer skills" even though I thought I had done so admirably up and till that point. Sometimes I quite honestly win through intimidation (not that any of you were intimidated by me; my gosh, it was EXACTLY the opposite) and have been told some are hesitant to approach me. I don't like that, not in the least.

So, at the risk of sounding soppy, I'll stop right now, but, thank you all. I retain my viewpoints but will soften my approach.

You're all such great people; I am truly humbled!!!

Lily,

As always, thanks!

It is because of people like you, who are kind and thoughtful that I feel the way I do about the spirit of our Constitution.

What we have in common is much greater than what we don't. Isn't it good to know that there is room for all of us.

Peace be with you.

The attitude of reconciliation here is excellent. I left yesterday because I felt that the conversation was denegrating. I usually hate blogging because intentions are inferred from words instead of tone and voice inflection and eye contact. It is extremely difficult to gain a good perspective on any conversation. I did leave yesterday because of the following comments:

Your little persecution complex is tiresome.

You and CB come off as couple of whiney 12 year olds. Letting a guy like Steve bait you. I actually think through his sarcasm he had some interesting thoughts. Your bitter attitude comes off little sad for a self-professed follower of Christ.

That's your response. Find historical sources for Alexander the Great? That's a bad bit of subterfuge you throw out for not being able to answer a single question asked by me or Steve.

Anyone with a brain can interpret or philosophise on the meaning of the bible. Having studied in christianity or having grown/been trained in it, just means you lost your objectivity to really discern what it might mean for you.

Talk about straw men? Mike you take the cake with that Alexander the Great crack.

I am tired of the Taliban-gelicals demanding that everyone defer to their belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. I'm tired of them wasting so much of their time working to manipulate legislation and the Constitution to exclude their neighbors.

I'm not sure he or Mike is coming back. Maybe they are off trying to find scriptural evidence to back themselves up or perhaps they just don't know how to answer anymore.

Like you all I could think of nothing else all day yesterday. I hate loosing and hate feeling like I'm being mis represented. Thanks CB for expressing repentance I was worried for you yesterday, I know I easily get pulled into these type of conversations and that's why I left.

One thing my father taught me is that you can never know a persons heart. It is one thing to say what you hear a person saying it is another to accused that person of feeling or having a bad motive. Some times questions of clairification go a lot farther than accusations. Any way I am glad this has turned towards a reconciling tone rather than accusatory.

CB,

That post made me cry a little. Thank you. You're a bigger man then first suspected. Sorry if I was out of line with some of the things that I said. I don't like being harsh to people, especially ones I don't know personally, and I struggled over the words to say, but in the end, I felt it best said how it was posted.
I am not a christian now after having been one for the largest portion of my life and I firmly stand behind that decision as you do yours. I struggle to make other people understand me and why I beleive the things I believe, but always from a position of love and acceptance, never frustration. You are very learned in scripture and it shows, just remember not to let it box you in and blind you or you might miss the signs and messages that God is sending you. Remember, he directs us to the people we come in contact with for a reason. Bless you and may the debating continue on a level of love and patience.

Danny B,
As always, your generosity and diplomacy astounds me. You seem to be a very well-balanced person and one very worth knowing.Take care of yourself and be well.

CB,

I am floored! I did not expect that, or see it coming. It quite literally brings a tear to my eye.

I am a Christian. I am familiar with Christian belief. I never doubted that you understand the faith either.

I only ever meant to say that I have reconciled my faith with my active participation in a secular society. It is difficult to do at times, but I strive for it always.

I believe in what the founding fathers created. They were Christians, and far more intelligent than I.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

I believe in that to my core. I believe that they were right and just. They did not feel that they were compromising thier own Christian principles in doing so.

Neither do I, up to and including same-sex unions. Those who do not believe as I do are free to have their own beliefs and opinions. I cannot however, apply my scriptural belief to this debate. I simply believe that citizens who pay taxes need to be viewed as just that. What the Constitution provides for one citizen, it should provide to all.

I am sorry we got to the point we did. I allowed my patience to wear thin, and let it show.

Like you, I spent my whole drive to work, and half the morning trying to think of a way to make myself clearer. To reconcile this situation with someone half-way round the world.

To you I give all the credit for being the first with reconciliatory words, and I thank you. Were I there, I would shake your hand.

Think of me in your prayer, as I will of you.

Peace, CB.

Lily,

Your comments have been noted, thank you.

Danny B,

I must admit to disappointment since I thought the general rules of debating were understood by this audience (myself included), but, I erred and of that I am guilty. In fact, I sincerely do apologise if and because some of our postings became personal in nature. I must admit to have been thinking about these postings for the better part of the day and a bit I've been posting here, not for further ammunition, but, more along the lines of; what have we proven to one another? Have we actually been constructive in our debating?

There are different rules for different audiences, and sometimes the boundaries can get blurred. We've all, to my mind, had valid points and arguments. The fact that we refuse to agree with one another is a good thing, not bad, since that's the nature of the beast. I have been a pompous ass, of that I have been guilty. After actually printing out my postings and reading them, I have in certain instances stepped over the line of what is fair in a "war of words" or a discussion.

Lily, in fact, were I listening to myself in a conversation such as this, I probably would have said all you said and more. I don't think I didn't act in love, I think I could have acted MORE in love. That said, my beliefs will naturally bring me into conflict with those I debate them with who are of a different belief to myself. I love debating these things because I am good at it, BUT, I have let myself and more importantly, the Lord down in the WAY I did it. In fact, my beautiful wife to whom I showed my posts told me she thought I was a POMPOUS ASS!! She is my sounding board in life and she confirmed what I was already convicted of.

To all of you who took offence to my WAY of doing things on this listing, my apology is sincere. I sometimes think Christians themselves can be the biggest obstacle to people listening to and accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This apology extends to Danny B, Annette, Steve, Lily and anyone else affronted.

I will not, however, apogise one iota for my views, since I consider them right and according to the will and precepts of God and His Word. And, in the future, I will defend God's views with as much, if not more passion and verve as I did here, only, next time, I'll be nicer about it.

In closing, my sincere wish to you all is that you are all blessed in all you do, but, that at some or other point in your life you will experience the saving grace of Jesus Christ, and not let the actions of some pompous ass i.e.: myself, be a stumbling block to at least opening your heart up to the possibility of getting to know Jesus Christ.

Lily,

Thank you for the validation. I was beginning to think CB and I were all alone here.

BTW...great website you recommended!

CB,

Do you suffer from short man syndrome? You are rude, insulting and quite arrogant for a man of god. I don't think YOU'RE playing nice. You're condescending and you're the one denigrating what everyone else is saying by claiming them ignorant from lack of research. Almost everything you accused Danny B of doing is what you've been doing. Here's a couple of your "nicer" quotes.

"Let me tell you a short story, since I know attention span is a problem for you."

"don't pretend to know what we're speaking about and don't rely on second hand knowledge (even of life itself) garnered from CNN and CNBC or the Disney Channel. In short, wake up! "

"(CB's church now Danny B, keep up) "

"Tell you what, see if you can keep focus and let's not make this a country vs. country thing; your comment quite honestly spoke volumes...more than you’d care to admit...can you spell “Xenophobia?” We’ve had quite enough of the Xenophobia issue in South Africa…oops, there I do it AGAIN!!! I mentioned my country, oh sorry about that old chap! "

Danny B ruffled your feathers and he did it without getting all uppity and insulting! Maybe you could learn a thing or two from him, since he obviously has more dignity and self control then you do.
Your biting sarcasm makes you look quite the ass. Your pomposity makes any point you might have not worth hearing. AND you, my dear little man are wickedly defensive. I'm thinking if Jesus had been anything like you, christianity wouldn't have spread as far as it has.

--At what point did I say that my church was the “be all and the end all?”--

I see those quotes, don't put words in my mouth. You seem to overlook in everything you say that not everyone is Christian Sir. That's why I asked was meant by "the church" in the first place...to clarify. You picked up a debate in progress and ran with it. If you would read in a forward direction you would have known that.

ACTUAL quotes from you:

The term church (Greek, ekklesia) is used throughout the NT for the new community of believers in Jesus Christ that together with Israel and believing Gentiles of the OT forms the “people of God.” The term is used both for a local community of believers (e.g., 1 Co 1:2)

Numerous metaphors are used to describe the church, with the most prominent being the Body of Christ. In this picture as well as the total NT teaching, the emphasis is on the spiritual union of the members of the church with Christ the Lord of the church and with each other. (The NASB Topical Index).

In case you did not know, there is the "church" as an individual congregation and the "Church" as the bride of Christ, and this includes all true Christian churches.

"The Christian view is that it is the government's duty to uphold law and protect their citizens, and that all law is based on God's law. Like it or not, God puts ALL leaders in their place, He is the TRUE kingmaker, not man and not elections. Therefore, He requires that some kind of morality is maintained, and that morality is the Biblical kind."

What is your point regarding the founding fathers and man's ability to change the law of the land etc. though? If you read my words, once again, you'll see that it has to do with God putting all leaders in place.

Now me again...

Christianity is the minority in the world. The Constiution does not only apply to Christians.

This is what I mean by straw-man argument. You keep going back to the same old well to make your arguments. We are a secular society here in my "backwoods", and that has been my point all along.

I commend your country and applaud your new democracy. I said nothing to disparage your nation. I merely pointed out that the opinion of other nations is of no consequence in public discourse in this country. As you say, your democracy is new. Exactly! Not an accurate measure for what is happening in ours.

Again, straw-man argument.

Google that, because clearly you don't know what one is.

--The constitution is certainly open to interpretation, as is God’s Law, but, whether that interpretation is correct is the crux. One needs to go and look at what the original document intended and not change the latest version to such an extent that it in no way resembles the original.--

OK, so you Googled the Constitution. But did you read it?

The original document did intend change. It has all those Amendments. Did you see and read those too? They are part and parcel. It is a living document that has changed 27 times, even reversing itself at one point. It is not intended to be a static document.

--As far as I know, that has not yet happened (I’m no expert on your country, remember?) but the danger is there.--

Yes, as far as you know. And the sarcasm makes you look even brighter!

--when did I make this a USA/RSA thing?--

I never thought you did. I was responding to you:

"In RSA we still have a choice but things are slowly but surely moving in another direction, as with the USA."

Really, after only 12 years? That's why it is a bad comparison. And you've already shown what you know about the US.

And as far as my attitude toward foriegners goes, I am in defense of the immigrants here who are very much under attack by so-called "Christians". But if they are not citizens then their opinion is irrelevant in the public discourse of the US.

Furthermore:

--We have had a number of gay couples in our church; we welcome them and make them feel at home. They know that they need to respect the church and our way of doing things (CB's church now Danny B, keep up) and we respect and love them as people.--

Right, provided they know their place. How very big of you.

--Oh, and before I end this, let me say this; I endorse freedom of and freedom from religion. Fact is, we should all be able to practice our ways of worship and should not have these ways thrust down our throats.--

Provided you are Christian, and ignore the Constitution? ...And know your place.

My WHOLE point was about how PUBLIC discourse should be handled in the USA...from the beginning.

I am not sensitive and touchy. You Sir, started this when you mentioned me by name and attempted to write me off completely in two senctences:

"Danny B-no comment! For me to even comment on your statement will validate what you have said, which is just plain nonesense."

You are the sensitive one, gtiing quite nasty when asked to back up your words...Chap.

The only thing you have proven is that you know how to quote the Bible, write clever (I'm feeling generous)barbs about those who disagree with you, claim that half-hearted attempts at research make your arguments stronger, and not address the subject at hand.

Sorry.

Danny B,

I must admit, you seem to really get quite defensive yourself, even AFTER I addressed the issues you raised, practically one by one, and quite convincingly as such. Next time I'll REALLY take the effort to address everyone's point of view, even yours, since it seems as if you felt left out and were miffed as a result! My humblest apologies, do try and play nice though…

My dear sir, am I NOT supposed to touch on the issues you raised, even if they were addressed to Mike? This is an open forum after all...but hey...I'll check myself next time. Now, let's look at what YOU said Danny B, to ME Danny B...

At what point did I say that my church was the “be all and the end all?” At what point did I say that my church is the one according to which I am speaking? In case you did not know, there is the "church" as an individual congregation and the "Church" as the bride of Christ, and this includes all true Christian churches. If anyone needs to read a link to follow it properly, I'm afraid it's you. Either that, or don't pretend to know what we're speaking about and don't rely on second hand knowledge (even of life itself) garnered from CNN and CNBC or the Disney Channel. In short, wake up! Your ignorance on even the most simple of matters is a great hindrance to what could be proper dialogue!

You feel for those who belong to my congregation; ha ha, nice try! I'm really a big teddy bear!!! :-) Let me tell you a short story, since I know attention span is a problem for you. We have had a number of gay couples in our church; we welcome them and make them feel at home. They know that they need to respect the church and our way of doing things (CB's church now Danny B, keep up) and we respect and love them as people. They've remarked on numerous occasions about the love and acceptance they feel, and through our messages off the pulpit they know where we stand (seldom do we address this issue, because it is one of those common sense issues that don't need constant re-hashing). You know something; they ALL have admitted that their lifestyle is wrong! Because, it is!

Now, talking about the RSA in the way that you do; in what backwoods town do you live? We had free and fair elections 12 years ago and have been a relatively peaceful, albeit new democracy, ever since. You ask since when is RSA a yardstick for religious freedom in the USA; well Verwoerd or PW Botha (if those sound unfamiliar, go Google it; since I know you didn't properly research this part of the conversation) used Christianity as a FALSE BASIS for what they enforced, and, well, we've been there and done that and know the dangers of it. Have I tried to enforce RSA's values on the USA; oh quite the contrary, we all know who tries to bully who in world affairs, so get off your little high horse... Tell you what, see if you can keep focus and let's not make this a country vs. country thing; your comment quite honestly spoke volumes...more than you’d care to admit...can you spell “Xenophobia?” We’ve had quite enough of the Xenophobia issue in South Africa…oops, there I do it AGAIN!!! I mentioned my country, oh sorry about that old chap!

In a show of good faith and proper academia I went and Googled your constitution myself, and lo and behold, it says "we the people..." (with you one can never know; you have quite the track record). It goes on to say a whole lot more than that, and, I also commend you for accurately acknowledging that the founding fathers were Christians. What is your point regarding the founding fathers and man's ability to change the law of the land etc. though? If you read my words, once again, you'll see that it has to do with God putting all leaders in place. Every country gets the president and government they deserve. God wills it as such. Mere human mortals are tools to be used by the Almighty. You may not believe so...that doesn't make it any less so.

The constitution is certainly open to interpretation, as is God’s Law, but, whether that interpretation is correct is the crux. One needs to go and look at what the original document intended and not change the latest version to such an extent that it in no way resembles the original. As far as I know, that has not yet happened (I’m no expert on your country, remember?) but the danger is there. Why not write a whole new constitution and get the ACLU to assist you in that; I’m sure they’d jump at the chance. The fact is, your country’s foundations are Christian in nature, like it or not, and there is every attempt to try and deny that…and that, my friend, not even you can deny. It is plain for the whole world to see!

Straw man arguments; nice one...try another...funny how yours aren't though. This tactic of denigrating anything anyone says that doesn't agree with you as being no greater than straw man arguments is really tired old tack.

You're really touchy about YOUR country aren't you?! Nice patriotic fervour and verve! I commend your patriotism, but, quite honestly, when did I make this a USA/RSA thing? We were all talking from our own experiences, and mine happens to be RSA. Anyone in their right mind can see that; do you not wish foreigners to add their views, or, is it merely convenient to bring this issue to the fore since my views don't match yours? If you don't want one country to dictate their views to another...you're quite literally barking up the wrong tree...you need to look MUCH closer to home.

And, the sky is blue...because God said it to be so :-). Actually, there are a number of views, all eloquently argued but none with substance, hence my (continued) usage of the term as a description of your arguments. At least I listen to what you have to say…even IF I think they have no substance… I have one term of reference for your arguments and one for your attitude towards foreigners…can you spell Xen….???

Oh, and before I end this, let me say this; I endorse freedom of and freedom from religion. Fact is, we should all be able to practice our ways of worship and should not have these ways thrust down our throats. But, the Great Commission in the Bible states that we should go into all the world and make disciples of men…. I have the right to speak about my faith to whomever I choose. If they choose not to hear it, then so be it, I leave them. In this argument, however, I choose to make my voice heard and will say what is right. The problem is that you and others don’t like what I say; hey, that’s YOUR problem. As I said before, the truth hurts…but it also sets you free…so come on…give it a shot…you know you’re more than curious…

CB,

Well, there it is then.

"In your mind only brother. You admittedly have one or two valid points that make one think, but, when you go on about "what is the church really" and taliban-gelicals etc. I switch off. Your arguments have the element of the "why is the sky blue?" approach and that in itself is a sign that we'll get nowhere here. "

I was asking MIKE what HE meant by "the church", not you. I know what A church is, and I know hat I mean when I say "the church". It is a civil question, asked of an individual...who is not you. If you are following the conversation then FOLLOW it.

I don't even follow the "blue sky" analogy, thing, whatever that is.

"I'll start from the last post and work my way up...since there seems to be SO MANY!!!:-)"

Yes, work backward CB, don't risk gathering all the facts before you post your criticism.

"Your statement on the church choosing whom to marry is really valid, but, for how long will that hold before we are forced by law to comply? And, how many gay individuals will have the open mind to accept that I will not marry them since it flies in the face of my beliefs and the Bible? In RSA we still have a choice but things are slowly but surely moving in another direction, as with the USA."

Are you really reading what I said? Get it through your head that there is more than one chuch...or more than just YOURS, for that matter. Of course the churchES choosong for themselves is valid. If "the law" made you comply otherwise it would not be freedom of religion, and this would be a different argument...and I would be on YOUR SIDE. But it is not the case. Gays who would not accept that YOU won't marry them would have an irreleveant opinion, unless they belonged to your congregation. I feel for those who would. Since when is the RSA a yardstick for measuring religious freedom in the USA? Not a country with the best record of freedoms, with all due respect Sir.

"The Christian view is that it is the government's duty to uphold law and protect their citizens, and that all law is based on God's law. Like it or not, God puts ALL leaders in their place, He is the TRUE kingmaker, not man and not elections. Therefore, He requires that some kind of morality is maintained, and that morality is the Biblical kind."

That is not the view of the Constitution of The United States of America. No matter how much YOU and many of my fellow countrymen feel about it, it is the law of the LAND. God's law is open to interpretaion, as is the Constitution, however WE THE PEOPLE do in fact have the power to change the law of the Land, and the founding fathers arranged it that way. They were Christians, so you know.

"when you go on about "what is the church really" and taliban-gelicals etc. I switch off."

You identify my first paragraph, last paragraph, claim to switch off, and proceed to dress me down with your straw-man arguments...AFTER admittedly and obviously not gathering all the facts. Nice.

Let's go one further. If you read what I said about the church's opinion on public issues in the USA being irrelevant, then you should not be surprised that I feel the same way about other countries and their citizens.

If you want to talk about threats to the freedom of religion in MY country, look right at yourself my friend. It is those like you, who cannot accept that freedom of religion also provides, by default, freedom "from" religion. They are the threat!

I'd be curious to know, why do YOU think the "sky is blue"?

...but not too curious.

Maurie Beck,

Thanks for the info. Sorry I didn't get back sooner.

I don't have time to read everyone's responses, but I think some have posted ideas similar to mine. I will respond to the main article:

James Anderson said, "...a whole group of persons, by virtue of their very nature, are treated as inferior and undeserving of the full rights of citizenship and the full security of civic acceptance."

First of all, to say that someone's "nature" is that they are gay is an attempt to remove responsibility from that person. It very well may be part of that person's nature. But I believe that each person has an animalistic-side or a "natural" side, and an intelligent side. In our human stuggle to be moral beings our intelligent side has to constantly struggle to oppose our natural tendencies in order to maintain civility and to "be right" with God and ouselves. But each of us is ultimately responsible for our own actions, and in as much as we resist those bad behaviors we are inclined toward we are in the right.

I acknowledge that some have extremely strong inclinations toward homosexual behavior. There are some who also have extremely strong inclinations to drink alcohol, do drugs, masturbate, or have sex before marriage. But all of these things only occur after we have made a conscious decision to do them. We may be "addicted" to any number of behaviors, but that is hardly an excuse. You cannot say that it is acceptable just because it's hard to overcome, or because it's "natural".

I don't care what animals do. If we used what animals do to justify human behavior we would also run around in packs or gangs and kill people from other gangs for our survival. Sorry, I prefer the intelligent life, not one in which we all can indulge in our animalistic desires.

Secondly, I agree with Mr Anderson that everyone is entitled to "the full rights of citizenship and the full security of civic acceptance", including those with same-sex attraction. And all effort ought to be made to preserve equal rights and status for those with this condition. But I will not condone marriage or unions between people of the same sex because I don't believe people who desire to engage in homosexual behavior lack a choice to engage in sexual behavior and are forced by their natures to do so.

It's time we woke up to common sense. Humans were made to be attracted to the opposite sex to propogate the species. If anyone has different desires they ought to be regarded with the utmost respect and love, and as people with a "condition" of same-sex attraction. I don't care if the source of the desire is genetic, chemical/hormonal, or societal. Each of these sources is known to cause disorders in people that are not accepted as normal and healthy, and we strive to fix or prevent these disorders.

With that said, anything that approaches discrimination against those with this condition ought to be stopped. I don't think banning gay unions does this.

Proponents of gay unions like to say that those opposed to it are bigots. But they are wrong. I know gay bashing has occurred, and I deplore it. But there is a legitimate, non-hateful argument for opposing gay unions.

Danny B,

In your mind only brother. You admittedly have one or two valid points that make one think, but, when you go on about "what is the church really" and taliban-gelicals etc. I switch off. Your arguments have the element of the "why is the sky blue?" approach and that in itself is a sign that we'll get nowhere here.

Your less valid points outweigh your more valid points, which is a pity really, since we could really positively debate your valid efforts further. But, let me show you the respect you're due by actually highlighting your better arguments:

Your argument on good marriages strengthening from within is a well constructed idea; anyone who feels that gay marriage threatens their own marriage does well and truly have a problem, but, while good marriages strengthen from within, they more often strengthen from above.

Your statement on the church choosing whom to marry is really valid, but, for how long will that hold before we are forced by law to comply? And, how many gay individuals will have the open mind to accept that I will not marry them since it flies in the face of my beliefs and the Bible? In RSA we still have a choice but things are slowly but surely moving in another direction, as with the USA.

Your argument on judges is a well-balanced social argument that holds water, if your worldview is a socio-political worldview. The Christian view is that it is the government's duty to uphold law and protect their citizens, and that all law is based on God's law. Like it or not, God puts ALL leaders in their place, He is the TRUE kingmaker, not man and not elections. Therefore, He requires that some kind of morality is maintained, and that morality is the Biblical kind. This may seem backward to you; hey, the ways of the Lord are even a mystery to us who love Him, but, the Word of God says that the more intelligent man thinks he is, the more foolish he actually is (paraphrase). The Bible also states that God's ways seem foolish to those who know Him not (paraphrase). Does that mean God has to justify Himself? Not in the least, and even less so to those who denigrate and hate Him.

Allow me to quote the following with regards your query on the church: The term church (Greek, ekklesia) is used throughout the NT for the new community of believers in Jesus Christ that together with Israel and believing Gentiles of the OT forms the “people of God.” The term is used both for a local community of believers (e.g., 1 Co 1:2) and also for all believers viewed as a corporate fellowship of the people of God (e.g., Eph 1:22–23). Numerous metaphors are used to describe the church, with the most prominent being the Body of Christ. In this picture as well as the total NT teaching, the emphasis is on the spiritual union of the members of the church with Christ the Lord of the church and with each other. (The NASB Topical Index).

This, Danny B, is what the church is.

It's past midnight in RSA; I'm going to bed.

CB,

Your admitted refusal to respond indicates you can't refute what I have said intelligently. Nothing else you have said will contradict me either.

Danny B,

If I validated anything you said, then you probably read tea leaves to fortell the future my friend.

CB:

"Danny B-no comment! For me to even comment on your statement will validate what you have said, which is just plain nonesense."

Well you did comment (see above), and it in fact does validate what I have said. TREMENDOUSLY validates it!

Thank you.

Hey all,

In proof reading my typing I noticed all the errors; please excuse them. It's almost midnight in good old South Africa.

C

Steve, Lily Annette & Co.,

If you read my last posting you would have seen I said I was going somewhere, to return later...and here I am...

My my my, all this talk about being bated and all the rest...I must say...seems like some nerves have been touched and frayed...

I'll start from the last post and work my way up...since there seems to be SO MANY!!!:-)

Lily, it is obvious to me that you really don't know what you're talking about; it should really be a rule that someone actually reads a book before commenting on it. It is crystal clear in the New Testament that Christ is the culmination of the Law and that all that went before it no longer applies, BECAUSE OF Christ's culmination of it. Does it mean that we can live as we wish? No, because homosexuality is addressed as sin in BOTH the OT and the NT. The working on the sabbath etc. etc. etc. need to be taken within the context of what Christ did when faced with the Law, so Steve, BEFORE you go off on a tangent kindly go read up on Christ's works and words...

Danny B-no comment! For me to even comment on your statement will validate what you have said, which is just plain nonesense.

Steve, the OT and the NT actually work very well in tangent with one another. The OT tells us where we were and where we've come from; the NT tells us where we are now and where we're going. But, it goes deeper than that. There is a thing called the Midrash Hermeneutic that states that the OT is the prophecy proclaimed whereas the NT is the prophecy fulfilled. The Word also makes it clear that the OT was all about preparing the world for Christ whereas the NT is all about telling what happened with Christ's arrival i.e.: immaculate conception, virgin birth, life, teaching and miracles etc., death on the cross and subsequent resurrection 3 days later, as well as His actions after the resurrection and then the impartation of the Holy Spirit as counsellor to the saved. The two testaments fit each other like hand in glove. The Old Covenant revealed and the New Covenant fulfilled. And yes, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; just TRY and prove it wrong why don't you??!!

When I state that Christ null and voided and Law allow me to elaborate more clearly; He null and voided the penalty for not obeying the Law. In the OT you had all these sacrifices to once again cleanse and make righteous. With Christ in the NT you need only accept His one sacrifice to be saved and made righteous. I must admit, the semantics of all these terms can sometimes be confusing and misleading but hopefully I've at least clarified the meaning behind what I said?

Lily, I have on numerous occasions said come up with new arguments. This "we stole this and this from so and so" really does not cut it. There are in fact "hard and fast" rules for interpreting the Bible. The mere fact that most don't is why we sit with the conundrum that we do today i.e.: the many false teachings and interpretations that come our way. E.G.: we're created in the image of God-now some people say we are little gods, which is a fallacy. Go back to the original translations to find out what the original meaning is. Now, before you go on about all the different translations here's the deal: every translation serves a different purpose. Some are less "academic" in their language and some more so; they all serve a function and one needs to use a translation that best suits your needs.

My dearest Annette. My oh my, someone certainly does have issues. I cannot speak for Mike, only myself. I have dealt with Steve in the way that best suits him. Is it with any less love? No, it is not, it is merely me being more adamant. At no point in time have I stated that you need to accept my word for anything, only the Lord God's Word as contained in the Bible. Steve has had some brilliant points and he's honestly a brilliant debator and makes one think. Kudos to him! You come in here, however, as a Johnny/Jenny come latey and say I'm like a 12 year old. Well, if my beliefs offend you in any way then get over it! The fact is: this topic is very close to home for you. You say your brother is beloved member of the family and church. I do not doubt that for one second, BUT, the Bible is the Bible and if you read out of the same one I do then you'll see that homosexuality is a sin, JUST AS is fornication, adultery, lying, stealing and the likes. Were this a forum for fornication I would be just as sure of my convictions. This is the point I've been trying to make the WHOLE thread! Sin is sin, no matter what the sin. This thread could have been about disrespecting your elders etc. and I would be saying the SAME OLD thing.

Please people, you choose to nit pick on the things that are most close to home. Yes, this thread is about homosexuality and I have said we need to love all people but hate the sin, just as Christ did and does, homosexuals included.

As for us being un-Christlike; have your read Pauls epistles? In fact, have you read Romans? He would have been told over and over again He is un-Christlike!! Why, because the truth hurts. In fact, you would have said that Christ is un-Christlike when He chased the people out of the synagogue for making it a place of commerce. When He rebuked the Pharisees and the scribes you would have called Him un-Christlike. Come on; love has been my CENTRAL THEME through all my messages on this posting. The people who can handle a tougher stance ala Steve I've given to him. Why? Because he can handle it! He's not complaining. Why you? As for the poignancy of my posts; thank God!! May I never get the glory that rightfuly and deservedly goes to the Lord!

Oh yes, Steve, that hug you've offered me; can we take a rain cheque??!! :-) I'm sure you need it more than I do. A man of the cloth; first time I've been called that. Usually I referred to as Pastor. Thanks for the new angle.

Lily, finally, re: the historical accuracy of the Bible. I'm sure you'd agree with me that historians regard something as accurate and valid if there are 50-100 individual, separate and objective accounts of the same incident or concept. Am I right? Good, well, with the Bible there ahave been over 2000 individual, separate and objective accounts through the years. That is what made them decide to include the books of the Bible in the Bible and keep the Apocrypha separate. Well, there were more than 500 eye witness accounts of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection where He was ministering to the people. You want to know how many accounts there were of Julius Caesar? 25-50. The Bible has been proven to be the most historically accurate book of all time. And that's just history; what about morality.

In all of my responses to your posts I have addressed the issues you've raised. Kindly do so with me. But, if you choose not to, I'm big enough and old enough (I'm a tad older than 12 years old)to deal with it.

Lily,

Thanks all around! I love political cartoons and will be sure to check that out.

oh PS, Dan, have you ever checked out Darryl Cagle's political cartoons. It's a sight with many different cartoonists with differing viewpoints, they have a series of toons on gay marriage you might like. www.cagle.com

Danny B.

so well put, thank you. i have to say that nobody should be able to disagree with that statement.

Steve,

I'm not sure he or Mike is coming back. Maybe they are off trying to find scriptural evidence to back themselves up or perhaps they just don't know how to answer anymore.
PS- I don't think Christ "null and voided" anything in the old testament as much as he clarified certain things and gave addendums to others. Anyway, that was what i was always told in Bible study when i questioned the hypocrisies and contradictions between the two books.

Mike:

"Why do I have to change my mind? for 2000 years the church has been pretty consistant on this issue it's a MAJOR deal to make that change. Most people outside of christianity don't see the big deal of it however it is a major doctrinal change that impacts a WHOLE lot, requiring a new herminuetic on not just that scripture but many other."

First, I am confused by what you mean by "the church". Christianity has not been "the church" since Martin Luther and Henry VIII. Which church? Please don't tell me that now we can include all Christians under one umbrella to make an argument convenient.

I don't believe you need to change your mind about that.

What really gets me when it comes to debate over things like gay marriage in the US, is that too many people who believe as you do demand that everyone defer to their beliefs.

What the church has to say about the US government acknowledging same-sex marriage, and offering them the same rights and responsibilites is irrelevant.

The US should recognize no marriage, nor perform any. They should be known by the government as civil unions whether the couple is gay or straight. The judge at the courthouse, per the constuitution, is not the agent of any religion. He is a servant of the taxpaying public, which definitely includes gays.

Marriages are not made by the term "marriage". Anyone feeling that their marrigae is in jepoardy because gay strangers do it too does not have a very good one to begin with. Good marriages strengthen from within.

Let the churches decide who they will marry, and what the definition of marriage is. Then if they want to exclude a group based on their interpretation of scripture it will be their right to do so because of freedom of religion in this country.

I am tired of the Taliban-gelicals demanding that everyone defer to their belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. I'm tired of them wasting so much of their time working to manipulate legislation and the Constitution to exclude their neighbors. I don't resent their belief, but I do not share it. Likewise, my belief is not the standard by which public issues should be handled either.

CB,

I have to ask. If certain parts on the Bible are not to be adheared to any longer then why are they still in the Bible? In fact what good is the OT if Christ "nulls and voids" the law?

I have never heard of a Christain saying that we no longer have a use for the OT, yet that appears to be what you are saying. You also say that the Bible is inerrant.

You cannot have it both ways. it is all the lteral word of God or it is open to interpretation. Which is it?

Talk about straw men? Mike you take the cake with that Alexander the Great crack.

CB,

I don't recall there being any hard and fast rule on interpreting the bible. It's basically a philosophy and sure there is the commonly accepted philosophy/interpretation on the bible but that doesn't make it inerrant, or you for that matter. Anyone with a brain can interpret or philosophise on the meaning of the bible. Having studied in christianity or having grown/been trained in it, just means you lost your objectivity to really discern what it might mean for you. You have allowed others to make interpretations for you. Noone can unerringly interpret the writing of anyone else as it was written and meant without actually being that person, so good luck with being so schooled and RIGHT in your job. And PS, I was raised within the confines of christianity until i stretched my wings and discovered that there is an entire world out there and a lot of history, history that stretches further back than the bible. I just don't believe christians cornered the market on salvation considering that a lot of their beliefs were adapted from sources that existed before they did.

That's your response. Find historical sources for Alexander the Great? That's a bad bit of subterfuge you throw out for not being able to answer a single question asked by me or Steve. As for everything else you said, right back at you. Don't get to full from eatin your own words now, oh pious one.

Mike,

You are completely incorrect. This is not a blog for Christians to discuss homosexuality. This blog is for everyone or at least anyone who wishes to weigh in. It is not a real hard concept to understand.

As far as I can tell neither Steve, Lily or anyone else for that matter on this blog was being adament that you accept their position. Your little persecution complex is tiresome.

Let me give you a hint: You are in the majority. Homosexuals are a tiny minority. Your point of view is more than tolerated, in fact it is the prevailing view and defacto law of the land.

You and CB come off as couple of whiney 12 year olds. Letting a guy like Steve bait you. I actually think through his sarcasm he had some interesting thoughts. Your bitter attitude comes off little sad for a self-professed follower of Christ.

CB, you just come off like an ass. Get over yourself. Your posts were less than poignant.

SNAP, indeed. Children.

I happened upon this blog because my brother happens to be gay. He did not choose to be, he just is and always has been. He is a beloved member of our family and church.

Anyway, I am sorry, but when I read through these blogs very few of you Christians seem christ-like.

Well this has been interesting, Steve your not making me uncomfortable just displaying how little you actually know about christianity. Lilly I would challenge you to find the historical sources for Alexander the Great. Look at who wrote them and when... you might find that little bit of historical information interesting, Straw man aguments concerning scripture are pointless, if you guys dont' believe in the scriptures fine, what are you doing on a blog that supposed to be foe christians to discuss homosexuality in their religous context? Are you belivers, why are you so adament that we accept your position? What happend to tolerance? Aren't you supposed to accept and tolerate those you disagree with?

CB, you stated, "The Bible has more factual and artifactual evidence to support it than any other historical book."

Are you joking me? You must not know a whole lot about history. Nor been to a museum where they store the artifactual evidence that supports what many history books present. There actually isn't that much artifactual evidence to support the bible, just a lot of circumstantial conjecture.

Also you said, "certain passages of scripture have to be interpreted from the cultural perspective in which it was written."
So why wouldn't homosexuality apply. You don't think it was a cultural bias, the same kind of cultural and social bias that was exhibited towards women?

I'd like to know what you think about incest and how the creation of the world relied on it. If it was okay in the beginning when God created Adam and Eve, then why did God change it's mind on it's merits later on?

Off the subject, I think the funniest thing said so far was by Some person. This line sure shut Pablo up! LOL

"The propoganda that you refer to is called "geometry""

Golly guys,

Your not really selling me here. So sorry if quoting parts of the Bible to you makes you uncomfortable. I don'nt believe they were out of context in fact I think my post was pretty straightforward.

Sorry that merely pointing out the crazy parts of the Bible make you so defensive.

I am just going by my experiences and the Bible.

And no, I do not think that I am mistaken. Most Christians, especially American fundamentalists believe the the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally. The Southern Baptists even voted on it.

P.S. You never did answer:

Who gets to decide what parts of the Bible are valid and inerrant and who gets to decide when to let it go?

Do you believe that God is all powerful?

If so then what are you worried about?

CB

snap right back at cha!:)

CB,

Do you need a hug?

You seem awfully pissy for a man of the cloth.

steve: your simply wrong. Inerrecy is a concoction of the conservative christian in the age of science to understand how to approach the scriptures. If you would conduct some research on Galielo you'll find that the problem with galielo was that he did not allow the church sufficient time to process the new information that he was presenting. diogenes Allen gives a great perspective on this issue. Inerrance is a modernistic christian attempt to treat the scriptures like they are scienific text books. This is NOT what the scriptures are. How abot you try reading the book of Galatians on the issue of how christians relate to the Old covenant with in the context of the new covenant. This might clear up any ideas you have of penny for a pound. By the way the entire point of the scriptures was the it was the community of faith that interpreted the scriptures NOT external voices. It is in the context of the people of God that the scriptures must be understood. Your very siimplistic reading of the scriptures displays your ignorance of basic scriptural interpretation. We are not bound by the old law we are bound by the law of Christ. Now what that looks like we can begin to debate; but until you understand what the old law is and how that relates to the law of Christ your going to have a difficult time keeping up. I know you think it's simple but it's not, simplifying complex problems is like trying to describe how automobiles run on dinosaurs.

Steve,

Please don't try to tell me what the Bible says or doesn't say and even worse still, how to interpret it. I will not dare to tell a Chartered Accountant how to do their job; granted, I may know what a debtor and a creditor is, but that in no way makes me an expert. In the same way, some things of the Bible need interpretation by someone who has actually bothered with the small issue of studying the Bible and theology and "showing ourselves approved" as the Word of God says.

Steve, was it not Christ who said "let he who has no sin cast the first stone?" In that one sentence he made that practice invalid. Be careful not to misinterpret the telling of a story and mistake it with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I've said all along the Bible is inerrant Word of God! Since you know what the Word of God contains from Genesis to Revelation, how about telling me about the difference between the Old and the New Testament. Let's start from there and then we can chat. Or, is it too outdated for you to interpret, being an old book and all?

As for me; I'm on my way to lead a prayer meeting; it's what we "happy clappies" do! :-) I will return though, to hopefully read and be entertained by the enthralling expose of the Bible done by Steve.

Thanks Steve

Mike,

I completely disagree with your assessment. Historically the Bible has been viewed as the inerrant everlasting WORD of God, not merely authorative. In fact I would bet a vast majority of Americans believe the Bible to be inerrant. Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell sure do. The represent a LOT of folks. Not to mention the Catholics.

How can you accuse me of creating a straw man by merely suggesting we follow what the Bible says. As a Christian are we not to follow the Bible? It seems like if humans throughout these many thousands of years bother to include these books and verses and translated them then they must have merit. It is THE BIBLE afterall.

You seem to believe the Bible to be inerrant when it comes to matters of homosexuality.

Seems awfully convenient to me that your argument is covered and yet the things that are silly, illogical and cruel (i.e. much of Leviticus, slavery, etc.) can be seemingly written off.

Sorry Mike and CB, the Bible clearly orders us to stone to death those wo work on the Sabbath amoung many other odd and/or cruel things.

Perhaps the Bible is not inerrant and is indeed mistaken on these things.

Perhaps the parts of the Bible concerning homosexuality are likewise in error.

Who gets to decide what parts of the Bible inerrant and what is not anyway?

Seems pretty fishy to me.

Sorry guys,

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Lipidopteryx:

"And shouldn't individuals within religious groups have some say in the formation and evolution of those traditions?"

Sure and they do... however, should we also be talking to the individuals in century's past? Is it is fair to change christianity on a whim (by the way 20- 30 years of "scientific research" is a whim to a tradition that goes back 2000 years) on the basis of the spirit of the age that wants it choices accepted no matter what the consequence of those choices?

BC: "Religions should be able to define what is acceptable marriage within their tradition."

Aren't religions formed of individuals? And shouldn't individuals within religious groups have some say in the formation and evolution of those traditions?
Traditions can and do change in response to the changing spiritual needs of congregants.

Steve,

Ai yai yai! You make me laugh! This whole thing of working on the sabbath; you're stuck on one thing and drone on and on about it. Jesus Christ worked on the sabbath and that's what the pharisees and the scribes tried to use as evidence against Him.

One thing you need to remember is that certain passages of scripture have to be interpreted from the cultural perspective in which it was written. Things such as head coverings and the fact that women should "seen and not heard" (to paraphrase the passage) all had a cultural perspective as well as a perspective we can still apply to this day. The Apostle Paul also stated that he will become all things to all people if that will facilitate the spreading of the Gospel (paraphrase). Does this mean he compromises? No, it means that if something is a cultural norm he will respect it so as not to offend his guests before he has preached the Gospel. Cultural issues certainly play a role and while the Bible can certainly be read at face value to provide not only saving grace but understanding of God's Word, there are certain issues (i.e.: slavery etc.) that need to be interpreted in context.

The point is well encapsulated by Mike; we can all go around chasing our tails and arguing about this and that; I'll never accept your position and you'll never accept mine, even though you should!!! :-) I can argue till I'm blue in the face to try and convince you; without a teachable spirit on these matters it is all in vain.

From your assertions you'd say that I have slaves (in fact we have a nanny for our 7 month daughter that we pay 3 times the going rate; she is like family in the house and shortly her family will move in on our premises; is she a slave, no, she's an employee and a member of the family!), should myself be stoned for working on the sabbath and to argue the weak point on shellfish, should myself die as a result of my disobedience. Also, I cannot, just CANNOT condone this issue and other issues that are on the table right now!

Remember, Christ is the culmination of the Law. All is null and void in Him, although certain absolutes such as sin are not negotiable.

The fact is you don't want to see the truth and that is unfortunate. I say this in love Steve; I truly wish you all the best and I truly do hope you'll come to experience the saving grace of Jesus Christ someday in your life.

Sorry steve I forgot to leave my email if you wish to honestly discuss christianity and learn a few things I would be open to dialogue. Perhapse we could learn from each other

stonewall1012@netzero.com

Dear steve:

Im sorry you feel it is necessary to creat a straw man of our honestly held and convicted position. If you read the post this was supposed to be about how the church should view homosexuality. NO one has spoken about a theocracy. (which is what your words are implying) As a matter of fact this is supposed to be a discussion for christians to discuss this issue. I would love to be albe to discuss with CB some of the nuances of hermineutics and how we SHOULD be interpreting scripture on this issue but we find ourselves back to the defense. historically the church has not considered scripture "Inerrent" but "authorative" to you this may seem like a small distiction but is very important. Almost all of your so called "argument" are stemming from an american 21st century perspective about love, choice, and tolerance. If you could get outside of yourselves for just a minute and try to see the world through others eyes we might actually get a great conversation started.

some person:

Thank you for your comment. I don't believe I tried to make it sound like a secret society. however, this issue goes deeper than it appears on the surface. This issue is a struggle over world views. If you read Dom Crossans view he cited that we in our culture view sex primairly as "chemical and biological." The scriptures do not view sexuality in this manner. I dont' have th space to go into all the details but suffice it to say this debate is abot how we view humanity. If man is nothing more than chemicals bouncing around into other chemicals than your right. however what if man is more than chemicals? What does that imply. The religion of our country is truely scientism and your sentence displays this arrogance:

"You see, the world has come a long way since the bible was written, and most of us do not condone intolerance in any form."

with this scientism comes the modernism view that we have progressed. Progress is a falicy. What are we progressing towards? change, sure we have changed since the bible times but not as much as you would think. The determinism that the worshipes of DNA espouse is very akin to the fatalism of the ancients. All we have done is trade in "the Fates" for DNA. This fatalistic determinism the ancient church was against and decidedly so. The determinism of "scientism" we should be equally against. What is going on here is a conflict of world views. Christians should not view the world like we are all cogs in some mechanistic universe, we believe in organic unity. Where the physical decisions we make impact the spiritual life we live. I know this is difficult to understand that that's what REALLY going on here Some Person. REmember you too are trapped in your own scientific american perspective, some of us don't believe in scientism and reject this perspective.

mike

Mike and CB, you have convinced me. I am now on your side. I believe in everything the Bible says.

So as a new convert I would like both of you to join me this weekend. I was thinking about starting out with stoning some folks who work on the Sabbath, then maybe protest at some seafood resturants. The eating of shellfish is an abomination after all. I also know some divorces who need some straightening out, if you know what I mean. Maybe my daughter is finally ready to be sold into slavery. I should probably check with my wife first. Nah, what does she know, she is just there to serve me. Never should have given them the right to vote. Lets not be half-assed about this, I really want to do this up right!

Anyway, I'm just brainstoming here. Please feel free to help me out with more ideas.

You guys seem like experts.

I am going to go grab my bible and start flipping through for more good, Christian ideals. I think start with Leviticus, I hear there is some good stuff there. After all it is God's unchanging, inerrant word of love.

Feel free to leave your email addresses so we can coordinate for the weekend.

Thanks for showing me the light.

Some Person,

The problem that most people have with the Bible is that it is a book of absolutes. You're either right or you're wrong. The best way to denigrate the Bible, at least in the eyes of those who do so, is to call it outdated. It is a fallible answer at best and just down right unedcuated at worst. The Bible has more factual and artifactual evidence to support it than any other historical book. I'm not going to debate the historical accuracy of the Bible though, since it speaks for itself.

I will debate the moral accuracy of the Bible though. The so called "majority of American Christians" do in fact NOT AGREE with homosexual marriage. It is easy to make a claim of this nature without substantiating your claim, and even if you can offer up some pathetic evidence, it is suspect at best! Christianity is not some kind of secret club to which only the elite can have access or even understand. Christianity makes no disinction between what race, culture or creed you are; Heaven is for ANYONE who believes. The problem with individuals like yourself is that you do not know your Bible or read it selectively at best, and even when you do interpret your Bible it is the origin of the interpretation that leaves alot to be desired.

There are concepts such as Hebrew and Greek, but even older than that is the Aramaic and the Midrash Hermeneutic. Do you now what these are? Why not? Because you don't care to; you take from the Bible what you want and discard the rest, or, you call it outdated. Come up with a better argument and then maybe we'll listen. The point of departure is still this; it is wrong!!

And, whether you dress it up with a doily or have major "equality parades" that block up the streets of major cities it is still sin! You can do what you want; God will not change His mind!

Mike,

You make Christianity sound like it's some sort of secret club that only people who share your point of view can understand. Are you not aware that the majority of American society are Christians who pretty much understand what you're saying but still disagree with you? I've attended Catholic school through my entire childhood (was even an altar boy), and I understand what you're trying to say, it's just not rational thought no matter how eloquently you put it.

You see, the world has come a long way since the bible was written, and most of us do not condone intolerance in any form. Sure, you can use the bible as much as you want to justify your beliefs, the same way people did to justify slavery and segregation in the past, but it will fall on deaf ears because intolerance is generally met with....intolerance.

I do agree with you about "non-believers" quoting scripture though, as I also think they should refrain. No point in using outdated material.

Hey Mike,

Snap!!! :-)

The issue of homosexuality and unions between members of the same gender often get confused because people do not understand the type of authority that is operating in a given situation. For the purposes of civil law and the rights granted to all citizens, one can make a case for legal recognition of same-gender civil unions or possibly marriage. When it comes to religious communities, they have a faith that is normally based on scriptures that have normative value for the community concerned. A religious community that wishes to live its faith will hold to the truths of that faith, including any teachings that indicate homosexual relationships are wrong. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to force religious communities to accept what their teachings say is morally unacceptable.

Religions should be able to define what is acceptable marriage within their tradition. Governments should be able to define what is acceptable as civil marriage. The two may not mesh, but I think that is part of a free society. Whatever the solutions turn out to be, there is no good cause to mistreat or abuse gay people as persons. The only way we can affect other people's behavior is through addressing behavior in dialogue, not through attacking persons.

Anonymous,

I would hate to get into a major theological debate with you (I have my doctorate in this field, since it is my JOB after all) but allow me to address this issue for you. The passage "judge not lest ye be judged" is a famous passage that deals with the judgment that only God can mete out. Unfortunately, everyone harps onto this passage and criticises us Christians by saying we are not to judge others. To an extent you are right; we can NEVER judge the heart of man, but we can judge actions.

The "judging" of actions is actually to "discern" right from wrong and to this duty all Christians are called. Man, if we were not to judge any actions we would have to condone abortion, murder, rape etc. because it is not up to us to "judge." Where is the logic in that??!! In that case, anything goes and Jesus Christ's death on the cross would in fact be for nothing. When He said "go and sin no more" He expected us to use our "discernment" as to know what is right and wrong and to make a decision accordingly. What is our guide? The Bible is!! Jesus Christ is!! The Bible is life, Jesus Chist is the Word of God and is life. It is plain and simple.

The facts are; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that you will go to hell without Jesus Christ. Once you've accepted Jesus it is not merely a case of "business as usual", it is a case of a changed life because you have been bought with a price; that price was what Jesus did on the cross for your and my sins. We are to discern/judge right from wrong and act accordingly.

Therefore, far from judging the heart of the homosexual, we can judge their actions. It is wrong!! It is SIN!!! We are to love them as Christ loves them, but we cannot condone what they are doing. Just as we cannot condone any sexual sin of the heterosexual individual! Are we judging them and their hearts??!! NO, absolutely not!!! We are judging/discerning their actions that are contrary to the Word of God!!!

anonymous

"Where in the Bible does it give you the right to judge, condemn, cast out and punish others?"

this once again is an example of criticizing with out understanding. There was no one more loving and kind concerning the loving of others thank Jesus Christ. However, no one spoke more about hell and the eternal life than Jesus. Most non belivers quote this scripture but fail to take many other ones into account. This is typical non belivers attitude. Simplifing what is complicated. You are interpreting language to mean "casting out and punishing." Does the bible condemn, and judge? Absolutly but it condemns and judges everyone. I'm sorry anonymous but this is a christian issue how can you possibly understand it? Your ignorant use of the "judge not lets you will be judged" verse displays this very issue. Christian are called to be discerning and perceptive, by calling homosexuality sin does it not necessary follow that christians are judging like the the pharisees. anonymous this is a complicated christian issue, if you really want to contribute you have to take the time to understand what your criticizing. Take the time to learn HOW the church has historically understood this issue. Take the time to understand how hermineutics implied by Mr. anderson impact other verses and our interpretation of them. try and understand the difference between judging and descerning. Christians are called to descern but not to judge.

I have a question for all you Bible believers. Where in the Bible does it give you the right to judge, condemn, cast out and punish others? I thought you always believed that this right is reserved for God. What about the logs in your own eyes? What about the first stone? Oh, how self rightous you are but what gives you the right to judge others?

Don your just getting nasty and not really arguing logically but with biting words. Sure there may be examples of animals showing homosexual tendencies but they don't have souls do they? they aren't held to a higher standard, to God's standard as he writes it in the bible. God clearly speaks against homosexuality yet he does not ever CONDONE it. So if you work it out logically. It seems God is against homosexuality. He does NOT however, anywhere in the bible promote discrimination, or hatred towards homosexuals as he commands humans to love one another.

To chip away at the authority and literal innerant meaning of the bible is the basis of this debate.Does the Bible have absolute authority to command us in morality?..I personally say YES!.. the word of God has that right!.You on the other hand have the right to intellectualise and change the meaning of the bible to suit your own feelings,convictions or political motives on the subject of Homosexuality.If you can erode one truth of the Bible you can begin to erode them all.Pretty soon none of it is valid and the so called Church of today is indiscernable from the behaviour of the world ,..other than Gay terrorists and Gay mafioso who are Gay and murder .The point is that the real Church of God that gathers in Jesus name universally, disregarding organisation but accepting totally the Word of God as it is commanded .Would never engage in such a ludicrous notion as allowing fornicators and homosexuals into the priesthood,ministry or into the congregation!These directives in the Epistles and in the Gospels are not given as an option but are laid down as the foundation of administration so that the Church can identify what Holiness actually is.They are given as commandments from God himself equal in authority to the 10 commandments and to disobey them due to political correctness would be to destroy the authority of the Lord.It may be illegal to pray in school in the USA formally and publicly,but it is not illegal to pray individually or privately to God whilst in school.The Law of the land may change but God will never change .The USA may make murder an official legal pursuit but Bible believing citizens still wont murder just because its legal.Its funny how these so called Gay christians all agree that murder is wrong and a sin but their own disobedience is merely a misunderstanding of social custom and generational phobia.Does it make it Ok for a child of a substance abuser to become a substance abuser because he genetically inherited a disposition to consume narcotics?...the answer is NO! both he and the parent will both have to seek rehablitation from their addiction ,even though it is gentetically inherited.Likewise the gay,bisexual or curious paedophile must also seek attention and rehabilitation!...likewise the homosexual!He also must seek forgiveness,healing, understanding and counselling ffrom his creator GodAlmighty who is able to deliver the homosexual from the generational flaw in his character.By faith in the blood of JesusChrist!..
In closing and summarising I will end with this obnoxious and heterosexual statement.
In the beginning God created Adam and Eve,..not Adam and Steve!
It was not so from the beginning!
May God illuminate you to his word and the integrity of his commandments.God bless.!

Lion Trainer,

My arguments are old because the God I serve now is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. The God of the Bible is the God of today. Granted, we live in the New Covenant times because of Jesus Christ, but, God hasn't changed. The problem with many of the arguments levelled at the church, the Bible and Jesus Christ is that they've all been proven to be without base or substance, yet you still use them! Come on man!! What is that age old saying about the sign of lunacy...?

Danny B, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! One demographic or or set of belief adeherents or alternative lifestyle group does not have the monopoly on sin! We're ALL sinners! All of us!! Straight people (your term) are just as guilty of sin as homosexuals. Just because the homosexual community is asking for something that seems like "small potatoes," should we give it to them? Of course not, because it is SIN!! Just as we cannot condone abortion or pre-marital/extra-marital sex in the straight/heterosexual community. I live in the country with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world; we've just legalised gay marriage! I cannot and never will stand for and neither will God. His judgment is upon the country, just as it is upon the USA for killing over 50 million babies in the name of "freedom of choice." No mother has the right to choose life or death over their child, just as no person has the right to do as they choose; there are spiritual consequences for physical actions and God judges us according to our choices, primarily the choice of accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ.

Now, is homosexuality choice or are you born with it? I believe in nurture over nature. God would not give us a defective gene just so that He can judge us accordingly. I fully anticipate the comments coming my way on this... :-)

Jan:

Yes Im american, no I'm not frightened. I'm sorry you think I look silly.
Couple of things: "I thought Jesus loves everyone equally. It does not seem that way from the tone of some of these "Christian" posts."

Most people do not look at love the same way Jesus and the ancient's did. Love looked more like loyality and fidelity not an emotional gush gush.

Secondly, why is our language interpreted as fear or hate? I don't get Jan. Here's what I said:

Most people outside of christianity don't see the big deal of it however it is a major doctrinal change that impacts a WHOLE lot, requiring a new herminuetic on not just that scripture but many other.

How does that smack of fear? A big change is a big change, Yes its scary because its change but not because the church is afraid of homosexuals but because change is scary and difficult. In the west we are willing to throw caution to the wind and go with the newest bigest thing, The church does not play that game very well. We get very edgy about doctrine because it involves 2000 years of memory, for most of hte west history didn't really begin until what 18th century? Perhaps the 20th what a poor memory. For us in the church our memory goes back 2000 years and its important to us. So forgive us if we get a little edgy about things that you probably don't really understand.

mike

Mike,

I have been reading these threads and a question occurred to ask you.

Are you an American?

From your posts it sounds as though you are.

It's just a question, but assuming you are I've got to wonder:

Why are you Americans more frightened of different people than your Canadian neighbours?

We legalized gay marraige years ago with little to any affect on society.

We have approximatly the same culture (music, tv show, movies, video games) and our socio-economic make-up is very much the same as America.

Yet we don't fear gay marraige, our streets are safer, not mention CLEANER. Violent crime is but a fraction of that to our neighbours to the South and civilized discourse on issues and citizenship is encouraged amoung all Canadians.

Sure we have our issues to, but sheesh, why ya so scared of the gays?

You guys look kind of silly.

You seem like a nice guy and all, but I don't get it at all.

I thought Jesus loves everyone equally. It does not seem that way from the tone of some of these "Christian" posts.

Have a good one.

Danny thanks so much for your reconcilitory tone. I makes me feel less defensive. :) If I understood the post properly the question was about how christians should view homosexuality. If the governement wants to grant them martial status I have every right to disagree but that's not what the question was... What I don't understand Danny, perhaps you can help me, is he perchant of people who are NOT believers demanding that believers change their minds and think like them...? Why do I have to change my mind? for 2000 years the church has been pretty consistant on this issue it's a MAJOR deal to make that change. Most people outside of christianity don't see the big deal of it however it is a major doctrinal change that impacts a WHOLE lot, requiring a new herminuetic on not just that scripture but many other.

mike

Looks like I stuttered there...it's getting late.

Mike,

I meant no insult. I just meant that the truth is that there are 20 discussions, and the accusation that they were all one sided was inaccurate.

I do appreaciate that feeling marginalized is important too, but I am frustrated that in a consumer driven society where gays are a minority that the fundys (I like the way you put that) choose them as a target of scorn when they themselves contribute so much more to many of the greatest problems in our society as part of the majority.

What gay people do or want for themselves is really small potatoes when measured against rampant teen pregnancy (straight people), a 50% divorce rate, (straight people), buying monster trucks to drive 2.5 children around (straight people),and...well, hopefully you can see where I am going with this.

What gay people want for themselves is really small potatoes, not the root of evil in the nation and the sole cause for the disintigration of the "traditional family" (gag).

Peace

Hey GS,

If a civil discussion thread on a major magazine's website concerning homosexuality is your idea of a "vast dark hole" then you my man must lead a pretty charmed life.

I'm fairly certain there are worse things in life then a group of strangers exchanging ideas.

Danny thanks for the info. Your right I should have done a better job of researching the issue before I wrote what I did. I'm interested in how I was accusing and twisting the truth? My point was that I found it sad that the premere blogs were all pointing the same direction. Feeling marginalized IS very important. Marginalized is a relative word by definition: a group that is not in step or receiving benefits proportional to the larger dominant group. This is a relative status. It all depends on the relationship between the dominant group and the "marginalized" group because it's relative it is extremely succeptable to perception.
thanks for correcting me.

mike

Mike,

There has been no shortage of the other side of the issue on these posts.

And isn't this The Washington Post?

Furthermore, there are 20 discussions. You have to click the link below the obvious 4 to see the rest. Not all of them are on the same side of the issue.

As for the "fundys"...FEELING marginalized and being marginalized are not the same. Gays in this country are still marginalized, as are minorities.

You are dangerously close to sounding like a fundy though, accuse without facts, twist the truth, etc...

America! America!

By
Stan Moody

America, America,
God shed His grace on thee!
It’s time to step aside, Dear God,
And leave it up to me!
We’re really not ungrateful, Sir;
You did real fine back then.
But things have changed a lot, You see.
The world’s not what it’s been.

We’ve all gone off to college;
Learned how to read and ponder.
We’ve even read Your book, You know.
If You don’t mind, we wonder, Sir,
Why You don’t update that thing –
Bring it up to date.
Your plan just didn’t work for us;
We can’t afford to wait.

Your church is doing well, though,
You’ll be proud to hear.
The brightest folks are deacons;
The temple’s free and clear.
It’s all become big biz today;
The coffers do You proud.
The Jesus group is on the tube
Whipping up the crowd.

We’ve licked the population scare,
That had us in a fright.
Land was getting scarce, You see;
Food was out of sight.
The pill has really done the job,
But in case we make a slip,
We have a way to change our minds
That’s painless, sure and quick.

You must be proud as punch
When You look down and see
How we’ve turned our fields and streams
Into productivity.
We’ve tamed our natural resources,
And we’re quite prepared to fight
When anybody tries to curb
Our growing appetite!

There is a nagging problem, Sir;
We wish You’d concentrate
On wiping our those nations
That thrive on fear and hate.
We’ve done so well ourselves,
We’re quite appalled to see
People all around the globe
Denied their dignity.

Why can’t they be like us, Lord?
Our people we have freed.
That leaves us time for helping You
Stamp out lust and greed!
How can we keep it going, Lord?
They’re shutting off our crude!
(We’ll turn our wheat to methanol
And whip them with our food!)

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

Pablo,

First you said:

"In fact the Bible says the earth is a sphere".

When it was pointed out that that was obviously not so, you said:

"Scot, a circle does not have a beginning or an end. So you explain to me what is meant by the circle of the earth. You are just a non-believer. You believe propaganda over what the Bible actually says".

As I understand it, in the ancient world there was the belief that the earth was a flat disk floating in a great ocean.

Don't you suppose that this could be circle of the Earth?

Actually, I thought your second response about the circle having no beginning or end was better. However, you should know from the Bible that the world will end.

Blind faith is a wonderful thing, but to call facts propaganda because they contradict what you only think you know is ignorant and dangerous.

I find it very sad that all four of the discussion blogs were pro homosexuality. This is not to say that we don't need to hear, the problem is that this blog on msn seems to be be only talking on one side. There are honest spiritual-God fearing people on the opposite side of this issue. Why is it that no one else was asked to write on this topic? If this is honest unbiased and non judgmenal forum why is only one perspective given the first word? This is how fundamentalist christians get the idea that they are marginalized. (not that I'm a fundy mind you) I would like to know why are we not listening to believers in other countries on this issue? Why are we not listening to the poor down trodden believers in south america that get so much press on liberation theology? Is it possible that most so called 3rd world believers disagree with America on this issue? Just thoughts

mike

Pablo,

A circle is a two-dimensional "flat" shape.

The bible says the earth is a circle, thus, the bible is saying the earth is flat.

The bible is wrong.

The propoganda that you refer to is called "geometry".

Scot, a circle does not have a beginning or an end. So you explain to me what is meant by the circle of the earth. You are just a non-believer. You believe propaganda over what the Bible actually says.

Pablo

CB

You open by complaining about the old arguements against christianity, asking for something new...and then you spout the same old garbage from the christian point of view....PLEASE something new!

Wicca

lol...don't fret, not everyone is stuck in the dark ages, and some of us will struggle to keep the christians from attaining that level of power, ever again.

Thank you CB for shinning a rare light into this vast dark hole. You must be a wonderful Pastor. May Christ's blessings be upon you, your work and your congregation.

Pablo wrote: "In fact the Bible says the earth is a sphere.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22)."

Clearly, you need to brush up on your geomotry. A circle is a two dimensional shape. Early man believed he was the center of the universe, so a circle would be a likely description for the earth.

A sphere is a three dimensional object.

Wow, I should have proofread. Sorry for the misspellings. I type too fast.

Brambleton,

Thank you for the response. I accept the general nature of your post although I still do not agree with your earlier posts. Thank you for the kind response anyway.

As for your remark that I am somehow being disingenuous for holding the entire Christian population responsible for slavery and whitch burning.

thant was not my intention. My intentionin bringing those thing up was that while a comparative few participated directly in these activities. The mass of the community made it possible for them to do so and indeed played an important indirect part in those evils.

The lawmakers at the time were Christian as were a vast majority of the citizenry. Obviously it was ok with them. The community at large played a large part in the whitch burnings at that time. As for slavery it existed in this country contriolled by very devout Christians for hundreds of years. They took their cues from the Bible (as did Jim Crow enthusiests). The same Bible that you and I read. They were 100% convinced they were right (and they pretty much were the Bible is apparantly fine with slavery, as it never condemns it)

So the obvious question is what were they reading or seeing that we do not?

If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, how can there be such a divergence in practice among Christians?

Why do we not practice slavery today?

Who got to decide? Who gets to decide today?

It's an interesting question IMO.

Why did the minds/hearts change along the way?

So if the mind can change about huge things such as slavery, divorce, money worship, women's rights, etc. then surely we can change our minds and heart on issues concerning homosexuals.

Do you know any gay people? I do and in talking with them not a ONE said that they chose their orientation. Why would ANYONE chose such persecution and second class status?

Do you think Mary Cheney Chose to be gay?

Why would she?

Did Barry Goldwater's grandson choose to be gay?

Of course not, why would he?

They come from two of the most well-known conservative families in America.

Did you choose to be heterosexual?

Can you unlearn your heterosexual tendencies?

I did not and I can not. Neither can you.

Dear John Helding,

What verse says the earth is flat? 0. In fact the Bible says the earth is a sphere.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22).

Of course you do not hold to Biblical inerrancy. Then you would not be able to justify the sin of homosexuality. It is clearly un-natural and contrary to the unchanging word of God. I pray you would see this truth and repent.

Pablo

I must admit to not being very enamored with the God of the Bible’s Numbers 31 who commands the slaughter of every man, woman, and child of the Midianites…well, except for 32,000 female virgins, of course, who ended up being counted among the sheep, beeves, asses and the rest of the booty. Why waste a perfectly good virgin, let alone 32,000?

If the Christian God, who still discriminates against women and has a problem with same sex couples living in love, is the same God, now and forever, that we read about in Numbers 31 and elsewhere, then I will likely be pleased to remain a hopeful agnostic; hopeful that should divinity actually reasonably manifest itself it will have much more to offer the human species than the God of Christianity. Luckily the apparent bad genetics of the Old Testament God does not appear to have been passed on to his purported son; maybe Mary was a virgin after all.

The evolution of fundamentalist Christian and Islamic thought must continue in order for society to continue to evolve in positive ways.

Jesus, when confronted with a question of the Law (today's Holy Writ is the Bible) always came down on the side of greatest love.

Brambleton,

First you say; "It comes down to your belief in whether or not choosing a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. As a Christian, I believe it to be a sin."

Then you say; "I again argue that there is no scientifically respected research that conclusively determines if homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice."

So which is it?

On the one hand, you seem to be saying that you believe it is a choice. On the other, you seem to acknowledge that it has not been proven, but choose to believe it anyway.

What allows you to choose a belief that has not been proven, nor is outlined in scripture? Even if I believe that the Bible condems homosexuality, it does not specify that it is indeed a choice.

So why are you so sure it is a choice? Are you gay? Did you choose not to be gay? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", then your opinion is really without merit.

You acknowledge that science can neither prove that homosexuality is genetic, nor a choice. So you choose to believe that it is a choice. Great! That then allows you to support your divine right to intervene on behalf of the sinner out of love for them in Christ, and to "hold them accountable for overcoming the sin".

Who do you think you are to hold others "accountable" for what YOU believe is a sin, in the face of dubious information (self-admitted, at that) and no personal experience on the subject?

Embracing willful and militant ignorance, and hypocracy were not teachings of Christ! I defy you to show me scripture that says he did!

I will pray for you.

Amy,

Apologies as I do not always convey my sentiments in the proper fashion. I'm much more comfortable with in-person discussion than on message boards. But I digress...

We have different Christian denominations for the exact reason you state. Talk to a Catholic or Presbyterian about infant baptism and you'll get agreeable Biblical reference. Alternatively, speak to a Baptist and you'll get a completely different answer, albeit Biblically based as well. While in disagreement, both sides of the issue offer a compelling argument that is founded in Biblical scripture. I don't believe the Bible to be so simple as to warrant a literal interpretation on a scripture by scripture basis. Only through intense study of the scriptures, can we hope to understand what God's true meaning behind His words really are.

For example, the well known passage from Colossians 3:18 that states, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." This scripture is pretty obvious when taken literally and out of context. However, when studied further and applied properly, we find that the true meaning is not that wives are supposed to be subserviant and indentured servants to their husbands, but just the opposite.

And, again, Christians are not without sin and don't claim to be better than anyone else. Owning slaves or "burning witches" are egregious sins. Although I think it's somewhat disingenuous that you would hold the entire Christian population guilty for a crime that a few committed.

Hello all, I am a Pastor of a congregation in South Africa. I have viewed this thread with great interest but I must say, most of the views that have been expressed here denigrating Jesus Christ, the Church and the Bible are very much a case of the "same old same old." Come on now, come up with something new.

Allow me to describe the Jesus Christ of the Bible (even to those of you who think it is a book that should not be taken literally and is not inerrant); the Jesus Christ of the Bible loved the sinner and hated the sin. He died on the cross for everyone, not just the select few. He ate with tax collectors (highly despised in those days) and communed with people of ill repute. Why? To show His love for them and to forgive their guilt.

We as a church and as Christians need to love all those around us but not condone sinful actions. Yes, we need to remove the log out of our own eyes before trying to remove the speck out of someone else's, but some sin is so apparent and so "in your face" for the lack of a better term that it is possible to make sound public statements on the matter. We cannot judge the hearts of those who sin, since that is God's prerogative. We can only judge/discern the actions of individuals according to the Bible which is our highest authority in these matters.

One other point is this; just as we cannot condone homosexuality, we cannot condone pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual sexual relations. Why? Because it is SIN!! The same rules apply.

To all of you who dispute what sin is and whether sin is sin and whether we have the right to judge; the Bible clearly delineates it for us. We are measured according to the same rules as you, only difference being we are forgiven. Works do not lead to salvation, but salvation leads to works. Therefore, we should strive towards and achieve a "less-sinful" nature BECAUSE of the very fact that Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit not only reside within us but "empower" us to in fact sin less!

Finally, whether you believe in God or not doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things. It does not make God any less real or suddenly prove He does not exist. Yes, you can use the counter argument against me, but once again, that does not matter! In all the universe's knowledge that we are aware of, the one thing we are totally convicted of is that we know only one fraction of all there is to know. It is possible that in all that unfound knowledge the possiblity that God exists is there. Either Christ is the biggest, most bogus and delusional person that ever existed by calling Himself the Son of God, or He is truly the Son of God. You quite simply cannot take the chance of leaving it till too late to find out.

Anonymous-

Is it possible for you to unlearn your heterosexual behavior?

Here is the real conundrum facing the gay community...

either homosexuality is a learned behavior (i.e. nurture) in which case it can be unlearned, and therefore, can rightfully be characterized as sinful by the Christian community;

or homosexuality is an innate characteristic (i.e. nature), in which case, it cannot be characterized as sinful in and of itself, but it can rightfully be charaterized as a "birth defect" by the scientific community, and rest assured there will be some geneticist somewhere who will seek to "cure" this defect using stem cell research.

What most people conveniently ignore is that it has not yet been scientifically proven whether homosexuality is an innate characteristic. But once the innateness of homosexuality has been scientifically proven or disproven, the gay community will be left with no closet in which to hide.

Amy-

"Or shall we go out and kill some workers next Sunday?"

No, and don't even think about burning any witches!!!

Gettin kinda twitchy here...

Brambleton,

Thanks for the reply I guess but you did not really address any of my questions. In fact you went on to further pick and choose in much the manner that I pointed out.

You deem Timothy 3:16, Leviticus 20:13 and Proverbs 10:9 as acceptable and to be taken literally. So those verses are to be taken literally while others are to be interpreted, yet somehow it is all equally valid?!??

Yet you take the liberty to wonder whether death refers to actual death or death to his spirit or soul. You are interpreting there. The obvious question is why do you get to interpret that? Death does not mean death? Is it a metaphor? Who gets to decide? And why?

Your explaination seems pretty vague considering it concerns life's instruction manual.

I could go on but cut to the chase...

What you seem to be saying in a nutshell is: "God's word is God's word and it's all perfect and inerrant...mmmm, until it's not then it kinda sorta gets interpreted to mean what we think it should mean...anyway, just trust us."

Either this book that is thousands of years old and has been translated hundreds of times is inerrant or not. If not then who gets to decide and interpretthe right and wrong?

As I pointed out we dont own slaves or burn whitches anymore (many more examples could be named), so obviously something has changed through the years.

It seems as though you want to have your cake and eat it too. Intellectual dishonesty.

Or shall we go out and kill some workers next Sunday?

Wow, now there is something to think about, incestuous relationships. First of all, based on the bible, the only way for procreation to have taken place after the creation of Adam and Eve, would have been just that. Was that a sin, and if it wasn't then, why is it now? I'm not in any way condoning mutual incestuous relationships but historically and biblically it only skirted the edges of being a sin. Also, I would like to remind you of the very large role incest has played throughout history, especially where Royal Families have been concerned. Many of them were backed by the Holy Roman Church, the Anglican church, or the Church of England. God himself, supposedly backed those Kings and Queens, giving them the right to rule over his people.

As for your upbringing, i wasn't referring to it being religious or not, i was referring to what you might have been taught due to social acceptability during that time. AS in, maybe your inability to accept homosexuality has more to do with the enviroment you were raised in, and not based on what God deems right or wrong.

Lastly, in retrospect, it was short sighted and selfish of me to refer to our creator as my God and I didn't mean it possessively. That said, I refer to the awesome power that created this universe, this planet and life itself in all it's many forms and functions. The power that does not discriminate, nor judge or choose based on some arbitrary rules created by dead men. It is a chaotic but beautiful power that envelops all, all men, all animals, all energies as a part of it. We all were born of it, none of us can escape it and we all will return to it when our time comes. Religion, i.e. the bible, the talmud, the koran, the torah, etc,fall short of explaining and making sense of that power. Unfortunately, those books and the religions they belong to have only caused us to separate and differentiate between ourselves, causing confusion and concern the world over. If I love someone, be it man or woman, that could never be wrong. Not as far as the true meaning of love is concerned.

Amy,

A lot of questions there! Let me preface by quoting from II Timothy 3:16-17 (RSV), "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

As to your comment about being literal, let's look at an example regarding choosing homosexuality. Leviticus 20:13 states, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." In this case, does God intend for them to die a physical death? Or does it mean that the sin brings death to the soul and spirit of man because the life of God is pushed out by indulging in something that is an abomination to God.

Finally, Christians are not without sin and don't claim to be. Proverbs 10:9 (NKJV) "He who walks with integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will become known."

Lily,

Wouldn't this be easier on IM? LOL! First, I again argue that there is no scientifically respected research that conclusively determines if homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice. Also, I'm not sure what "miracles" you are talking about that reject scientific data.

Second, the idea that something should be tolerated as long as nobody else gets hurt is completely arbitrary. Given that premise, I'm assuming that you have no problem with incestuous marriage as long as it is consensual between brother/sister or uncle/niece?

Finally, my "sideways" upbringing was in a secular household. I went to both a secular high school and a secular university - both of which were taught by secular, left-leaning teachers and professors. I did not come to Christ until I was in my late 20's. I would like to know which "God" you are referring to when you say "my God".

John,

Are you saying the Earth is not flat?

Looks pretty flat to me.

Pablo,

What will need to be a final comment from me to this thread.

As a follower of Jesus, and a member of a Quaker faith community, I agree with you that we are held to account, that we do all sin (in the sense of missing the mark set for us by God, my understanding of the literal definition of that word) and that God will ultimately let us know where we came out on all of this. Moreover, I do not have absolute certainty as to God's will and I sense from you that you do not claim absolute certainty either.

But if I were a betting man (and as a Quaker I am encouraged not to be and here I admit to one of my sins), I'd go with Jesus's message of inclusion and not the concept of Biblical inerrancy. Hoping you are not still holding to the concept of a flat earth, the Bible is, not to mention all of the other issues where the Bible, written I would agree under divine inspiration but still coming from the hands of humans and in human language, contains literal statements that have since been revealed as missing the mark.

Slavery was once supported by reference to scripture and it no longer is seen as the will of God (and never was for that matter). Secondary status for women and ethnic minorities was once supported by appeal to scripture and is no longer seen widely as the word of God.

The foundations of literal interpretation are slipping. Moreover, relying on it alone, when the Living Christ is available to inform us, when the 'fruit of the trees' can inform us, seems a very risky and limited means for understanding God's will. It also seems to me to have encouraged actions that have caused considerable suffering for those so excluded and persecuted by such a limited interpretation of scripture.

I appreciate what I take to be your sincere concern for my soul. I am in the business of working to save my soul. Your words have challenged me, and must say have reconfirmed in me, my and my faith community's sense of God's will in this.

May you find similar peace.

Brambleton,

You seem to have no problem taking the passages on homosexuality literally. I just find this pick and choose attitude odd and with all due respect, intellectually dishonest.

It seems as though you are saying is that some of the Bible is set in stone, some of it is to be ignored and some is to be interpreted, but only at your discretion.

If not your discretion then who's?

After all as has been pointed out, good Christians used to own slaves and burn whitches at the stake. They read the same Bible you and I do.

We do not and never would engage in those things today.

So why the difference?

Why the change?

Who gets to decide when whats "right" changes?

After all the Bible does not change does it? If it does then is it really the word of God or just a bunch of stories translated over the years by man?

Brambleton,
I don't believe homosexuality to be a sin. It's not something people choose, it's who they are. We can't control who we fall in love with anymore than we can control whether we are attracted to blondes or brunettes. There are many scientific, anthropologic and historical (to name a few) reasons why things are the way they are and religion discounts all of them with high falutin words of miracles and salvation.

The sins of the bible were based on the era and the society that designed them. Nothing more. Jealousy, fear, confusion and uncertainty reigned in those days. Anything that was not viewed as ok by the masses and those in power, was deemed a sin. To me, a sin has to hurt someone other than the person committing the so-called sin. Homosexuality hurts noone. AND i'm not talking about the deviant homosexualtiy that priests, pastors and other religious representatives have been known to display. I think we've all seen enough of what happens when someone is unreasonably expected to deny a part of themselves. I'm talking about a loving relationship between two people of the same sex. It doesn't harm the children they may raise, or the family and friends that surround them. It may upset your heterosexual senses but in my opinion that's because of your sideways upbringing and your absurd need to place yourself above that which is different and misunderstood.
PS, you can quote scripture written by men who never even knew Jesus, or scripture based on some divine revelation handed down to some man, but my God is timeless and omnipotent and cannot be contained in the words of men, written in some moment long long ago.

Amy,

I did not say anything to suggest the Bible should be interpreted literally. In the given example regarding choosing homosexuality, there are just too many references in different scriptures to suggest otherwise.

Lily,

I don't believe animals have the capacity to sin. That is, they don't have the ability to differentiate morally or ethically.

Dear Lee,

Do not quote the Bible out of context. It is true that I do not have the authority to condemn anyone to hell. God has that right. The same Bible that says do not judge also says to point out things that are evil. It also commands the Christian to be "salt." Salt in biblical times was a preservative. Christians are to be a preservative in a society. The problem is this culture largely does not want the Christian anymore. I keep hearing about tolerance but I see none from the proponents of “tolerance” and the homosexual agenda. I cannot judge you but I can tell you that God's word says unequivocally that homosexuality is un-natural and sinful (see Romans 1:18-32). The scriptures say that all people will be judged by the word of God. Not by what they thought was right. Not by the prevailing consensus in a society but by God's word. "Repent therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and time of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Paul the Apostle)

Pablo

Are animals capable of sinning?

Well Mr. Brambleton,

I am guessing that you are saying that we should believe the Bible to be literal and inerrant? Quite a Pandora's box you are opening up there.

Do you actually go around killing those that work on the Sabbath? If no, then why?

You are commanded to do so.

One could go on and on about various Biblical do's and don'ts of course, so in the interest of time and space I just have to as with all do respect:

Is the Bible inerrant and to be taken literally?

Lily,

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone. But I don't think any Christian here is turning his/her back on anyone. It comes down to your belief in whether or not choosing a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. As a Christian, I believe it to be a sin. Therefore, my responsibility is to love them, show compassion for them, fellowship with them, and hold them accountable for overcoming the sin. If I myself had an addiction to pornography or alcohol, I would expect nothing less from my brothers and sisters in Christ. You can love someone tremendously without condoning their behanvior. I Corinthians 12: 24b-26 (NASB), "But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it."

Lily,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and intelligent post.

It's funny how radical holding reasonable and humane positions can seem on these boards.

I think what christians need to keep in mind or even know to begin with is 1)just how many versions of the bible are out there and how and who determined what gospels were included in it for the masses to read.(I have many different versions myself, and in none of them have I read the word "disgusting" describing homosexuality so that must be a new version) 2)It is not just a religious account of things that were happening at that time, but also a historical and cultural account. Many traditions that were in place at that time were attributed to God as being of his word, when it fact it was just men trying to justify the ways in which they lived. THey were protecting their lifestyles, the same way we do now, by claiming some divine backing that allows it. The men that were in power at the time, needed to stay in power by condoning what was socially popular at the time and condemning what wasn't. However, you can not stop evolution or change if you will, hence the induction of the New Testament, to explain and justify the changes that needed to occur at that time.
Jesus realized in order to get people to hear his message, he had to have a certain amount of tact and diplomacy. He had to work on changing the things he knew he could change. His message was tolerance, but he couldn't come right out preaching to accept those things that were socially ingrained in the masses as taboo, he had to get them to trust and accept him before he could expect them to receive his message. He was careful not to outright contradict the religious edict ruling at that time, but he was trying to enlighten people where their religion steered them astray. As his message gained in popularity, his threat to the Jews and their way of life increased. The jews needed to silence him for the same reason christians nowadays close their ears to anything that remotely suggests Jesus was anything but divine. To protect their way of life.

Things get complicated where religious texts are concerned when people start taking them too literally. We can't rely on the information from a science book from 20 years ago because the technology has advanced and we've learned more than we knew then. I'm not gonna follow the rules of etiquette that applied during civil war times, because the rules have changed. Our world is constantly changing, our social norms are constantly changing, it's whats supposed to happen. Resistance to it, just makes you angry, judgmental and ignorant. The way christians are so resistant to it, it would be a miracle if they even recognized the return of Jesus for themselves.

One last thing, where homosexuality is concerned, I don't think Jesus would have turned his back on a gay person anymore then he did to the poor, the lepers, slaves or prostitutes. He was about helping people to improve themselves and their lives, not about condemning them. If God is love, then why would he condemn love, regardless of who it's between.

Is Judge not lest you be judged yourself the most forgotten passage of the bible in this debate?

Hey Danny,

I did know him before when he was a homo. I liked him (in a normal way) and wanted to showed God's love.

Pablo

Dear John Helding,

You have just chronicled how evil we humans really are. As far as animals being homos you are just grabbing at straws hoping to justify sin. These studies use words like, "suggests" and "may be." I pray that you would "escape from the snare of the Devil" as you are being held "captive to do his will."

Pablo

I think the main problem is that: all of us knows the answer. Am yet to come across a Bible believing Christian who humbly is able to acknowledge: "I don't know.... "
about the moralistic stand on homosexuality

How many Chritians during 18th Century America
asked: "Lord we don't know!! We're confused.... It seems the Bible also seem to allow slavery according to some new testament verses.. Is what we do right? I have difficulty conforming my conscience to what is practiced in the Church?.... I'm seeking, fasting, praying... please help us to understand the word... because I'm walking in a Dark Alley....."

What I mean is... before simply saying.... God loves everyone... Love your neighbour as yourself.. do people like Mr James Anderson come to their stand so easily...????? Has he ever consider 'I don't know.. ' and reflect on the matter for days/months/years at least before his heroic and admirable stand....

Nice column. I was wondering if any saw the parallel between the biblical approval of slavery and the condemnation of homosexuals.

For those of you who depend on the bible for your reasons to declare homosexuals "sinners", you cannae have it both ways. The bible seems quite clear about slavery in the same book so often quoted as authority to hate gays.

What's with all the "sin" stuff? Does it ever occur to many posters here that "sin" is something that is a creation of the believer and not dependent on any objective reality? There must have been sinners in every religion that has ever been created by man. Oddly, they don't all agree on just what that is. It would seem to follow that claims that homosexuality is a sin stand on the same shaky ground as not making proper offerings to Zeus.

Thanks for the wonderful column. There is hope for the theists!

I have a question to those Xians who say that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is so: is there no room in your philosophy for change?

You would do well to remember that god made a first covenant with the Jews. That covenant was insufficient, so Jesus brought a second covenant to the Jews. It is important to realize that it was Paul, not Jesus, who brought the Gospel to the gentiles. If you base your beliefs on what Jesus taught, there is no room for gentiles.

Paul had no direct authority to do this. He did it because the word was revealed to him in visions. It was not a teaching of Jesus or his disciples to extend Jesus' teaching to the gentiles.

I would guess that were many of the Xians on this board around in Paul's time, they would be calling him heretic, for there was no promise to the gentiles, only the Jews. There was no salvation in the Messiah for anyone but the Jews. Paul would have been shouted down by most of the Xians on this board just as vehemently as they protest against homosexuality today, and they would have backed up their protests with the same verses and the same logic that they use against gays.

Open your eyes and your hearts to the reality and truth of today's world. When it comes to homosexuality, be a new Paul. Bring the church forward, kicking and screaming if you must, but it bring it forward, as did Paul.

Pablo,

You actually make me laugh!

You say you know a gay person, but he was converted. Did you know him before the conversion? If not, you do not know a gay person then...he's not gay anymore, right? Would you have bothered to know him when he was gay? I suspect not, I'm sure this is a conditional aquaintence.

HA! Ridiculous!

Gay conversions, intelligent design...no wonder our system of education can't compete with the rest of the industrialized world. We have to waste so much time in this country bickering over this drivel with people who refuse to be educated.

Brett,

Lets go get congress to pass laws outlawing shellfish.

Since it is an "abomination" and all....

C'mon Brett, lets take the fight to these godless seafood lovers who are out to destroy our country (and our children)!

Like you said "the Bible is not a salad bar to be picked through..."

Don't even get me started about God's thoughts on divorce...or money.

O.K. I was just kidding on that last one...we all know God love money. Just ask Pat Robertson. Or the Pope.

Left Handedness is UN-Natural/Un-Godly

Yes, it occurs in 4-8% of humans and many other species, just like homosexuality

but if God had meant us to be left-handed, he would have made baseball gloves with six fingers.

The Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2.

That does not remove the possibility of or challlenge FAITH IN GOD. It does however, challenge notions like the definition of sin, claims that homosexuality or sex of any kind is sinful, and a lot more including justification of slaver, Indian reservations, and other forms of concentration camps.

So for those of great faith that are using the Bible to bash gays and other things, just what is your faith in? Clearly, your faith is in the Bible and not necessarily in God. Perhaps you should check out "sell your soul" page at hoaxbuster. It's Devil and not God that is the key supernatural being of the Bible, consistent with your stand.

Pablo and Anonymous,

-The slavery in the Bible was different then the slavery practiced in the USA.

I wonder what would happen to you now if you practiced the type of slavery condoned in the bible?

-Slavery was never condoned by God.

You are correct. In many cases it was mandated, not condoned.

Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery?

Yes. The situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

Whom does God say should be enslaved?

The people of other tribes living around them "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).

What effect does God say warfare has on slavery?]

Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
The above quotes are from http://www.landoverbaptist.org

-Homosexuality is un-natural and thus a violation of God's created order.

You obviously don't get your information from any scientific literature (I realize you probably think all scientists are atheists. However, if it wasn't for medical science, you would probably be dead from some simple infection easily cured by antibiotics). As John Helding said, "Homosexual behaviour has been well documented to occur in other species, not just humans." In one of many examples, gay rams occur in about 4-8% of sheep. They show no interest in ewes, only other rams. This corresponded with differences in brain structure that are similar to that found in gay male humans and other animals. There is some indication the cause of these differences is the result of pre and post natal developmental changes induced by alterations in hormone level (specifically testosterone metabolism). Whether there is a specific environmental component (e.g. maternal fetal environment), or even a possible genetic component has not been established.

Very well said.

Pablo,

FYI, I know you are finding it hard to believe, but yes, there is solid documentation of homosexual behaviour in the animal world. The article below is about just one of those studies/exhibits.

I'm not doing this to get in a fight, but really do wish to challenge you to reconsider your conception that homosexual behaviour is unnatural.

In the light,
A fellow Christian

Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition

By Alister Doyle, Environment CorrespondentThu Oct 12, 8:46 AM ET

The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum
exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins,
parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural
History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as
"unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear --
homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against
nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against
Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than
1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation
from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli
said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples
among the animals.

"The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's
fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or
bisexuality among animals.

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes
raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a
male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males.

One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as
two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe
mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles.

BURN IN HELL

One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded
by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell," Soeli said. Laws
describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the
statutes in some countries.

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among
hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often
been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of
interest or fear or ridicule.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with
either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos
are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic
dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by
having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later
mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and
sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in
men could give higher fertility among women," he said.

---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061012/sc_nm/environment_homosexuality_dc

This whole "they used the Bible to justify slavery" thing is not convincing. There were very few people that actually used Biblical quotes to justify slavery. Everyone quotes those five lunatics and all of a sudden all 19th century Christians look like bigots.

Examine the facts. The Bible does not condone slavery, anywhere, except where it rrecords history and fails to condemn it. OTOH, the Bible EXPLICITLY condemns sexual immorality as "disgusting"... in both the New and Old Testaments. There's a big difference between "failing to talk about something" (slavery, homosexuality) and "explicitly labeling it" good or bad.

On another note, perhaps we Christians should ABOLISH marriage from church life. Maybe we can also ABOLISH pastorates. Maybe we can stop the ETHNIC CLEANSING of evangelicals and conservatives from mainline churches.

It's both funny and sad how much traction an argument can get if it accuses the other side of being racists or nazis.

-RT

nicely said brett, but be ready for the onslaught of responses, stand strong

I do know a person who was once gay but then He turned from his sin and trusted in Jesus. Now he has a new life.

Homosexuality is un-natural. If animals practice it they are sinning also. But somehow, I do not believe that animals are in homosexual relationships because they usually act more morally than most humans.

God is the source of all morality. I will take His word over any finite sinful human being including myself.

We all deserve to be stoned. Jesus took the punishment we deserve. I trusted Him and now I am new and free. I pray all who read this would know His love and forgiveness.

So Brett just curious,
How many people have you stoned to death recently for working on the sabbath?

Dear Pablo,

Homosexual behaviour has been well documented to occur in other species, not just humans. Differences within populations, be they the color of skin, the height of individuals, the preference for left or right-handness is predominately how nature is constructed. What would be unnatural, especially in a biological context, would be for there to be no differences or variation.

Variation is a fundamental law of nature, and might I add a key aspect of the Creator's conception of this universe. As we celebrate diversity we celebrate God the Creator.

You make an intersting argument, but one that ignores the fact that man is a sinful being. Slavery was not sin, but it was not condoned by God as previously stated in another response, but instead was brought upon mankind by the sinfulness of his heart and the selfish desire to control others(which is sin). The act of homosexuality is a sin as written in both the old and new testaments(see Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6:9). It seems to me that like so many liberal theologians, that you are putting social justice above spiritual truth, but you forget that you cannot have social justice without spiritual truth.
For example, the woman at the well was accepted by Christ and was also told to go and sin no more. Likewise we have an obligation to tell people who come to salvation that you are loved but now go and sin no more, turn from your sinfulness. Salvation and Redemption are a turning away from sin not allowing it to continue. You do an injustice to people if you hold back the truth of God's word instead of being honest with them. Does this mean that some people will not come to accepting Christ as savior, absolutely, but that is because we have free will. But if you never truly give them the truth then they will never have the ability to have a choice.
What is the choice? Simple, Accept Jesus as Lord and Savior knowing that you must turn away from your sin or deny him and embrace the sin that already invades your life thus leading to death. Also remember that Jesus stated, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."(Matthew 18:6)

Your denial of truth and your unwillingness to stand for it, causes those to sin and you will be judged accordingly as anyone will who leads people to sin and away from God's Word. I also wonder how you can believe in any of the scriptures if you deny some of them? How do you know which ones are right and which are wrong? The Bible is not a salad bar to be picked through. Yes it is hard sometimes to accept everything, but if you deny even a part of it than you cannot honestly accept any of it.

I am a Christian who accepts all of God's Word, knowing that I am a sinner in need of salvation. Am I perfect, no, but I am saved and I am daily striving to win the race, turning from sin and turning to Christ. It is a daily task and one that is not always easy but is worth the reward of being with God in his kingdom.

Oh Pablo,

Do you personally know any gay people. I do and their relationships are no more exotic or unusual that that of me and my wife.

By using your logic, Canada would be having all kinds of problems. They made gay marraige legal years ago and their society is much more civil and peaceful than that of the US.

The slavery in the Bible was different then the slavery practiced in the USA. In fact, many people sold themselves into slavery in biblical times. Yes there were abuses. Paul is simply saying that slaves need to live up to their obligation and that masters are to treat slaves as equals in that both slave and master are made in the image of God.

Homosexuality is un-natural and thus a violation of God's created order. All nations who have accepted it as normal have been judged. Maybe that is one of the reasons our country is having so many problems. I pray that God would have mercy on us. I pray that we would see all our folly and turn towards God for forgiveness before it is too late.

I completely disagree with this columnist on this issue. There is nothing natural to homosexuality. That being said, all sin is bad and I am as sinful as anyone. However, just because I sin I don't encourage others to do so with no thoughts for the negative results.

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

What you said and I agree is, we need a new book. Old book, the Bible is broke and, like old washing machine, when break get new one, after it's been repaired a few times at least. Bible is broke beyond repair. Throw it out and write a new one.

It's been done already, the constitution of the United States of America. What it allows God allows without it being sin. One nation under Nature's God.

The civil war goes on. It's now boiled down to replacing the constitution with the Bible. The Gods in the Bible have been identified and are all hoaxes, definitely not out God, Nature's God.

Mr. Anderson, you are correct that slavery (and multiple marriages) were accepted practices, but it was not so from the beginning. Slavery was never condoned by God. Not once did He command that some be free and some be slaves. Because of the hardening of man's heart, God permissive will allowed it. Man has a free will; God does not push His people to this or that. That is the beauty of free will and being human. The catalytic imapact regarding slavery did not start with Stowe. It started with an English white minister, William Wilberfore, who dedicated his life and in prayer, in the abolition of slavery in England. He finally witnessed the fruits of his labor just before his death in 1833.

Man is sinful. The Holy Book is clear on sin.

A very intelligent and humane response to this question. I agree with you.

And Maurie, thank you for your interesting response as well.

John Conolley,

He came to the University of Nevada-Reno and gave a talk. If you go to Wikipedia, you kind find the long list of books he has written. I'm not sure which one of the three books below addresses the Civil War theory. Certainly, there were nuts in the north prior to and after the Civil War, although the ones in the North were considered throwbacks, while the ones in the south were denigrated hayseed snake handlers and generally stayed out of the political arena until the recent emergence of the Christian Right. For example, when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod and showed that lightning was only electricity and not made by god to punish sinners, some in the clergy where up in arms, suggesting that because sinners were now protected by lightning rods, god could not dispatch them with his former precision, so he would have to resort to less refined methods like earthquakes. Nowadays, few fundamentalists would forsake the use of lightning rods, though I’m sure many still believe terrible lightning storms may be sent as part of divine retribution.

The Evolution-Creation Struggle (2005) ISBN 0-674-01687-4
Darwin and design: does evolution have a purpose? (2003) ISBN 0-674-01631-9
The evolution wars: a guide to the debates (2003) ISBN 1-57607-185-5

"Darwin and Design surveys the argument from design from its introduction by the Greeks, through the coming of Darwinism, down to the present day. In clear, non-technical language Michael Ruse, a well-known authority on the history and philosophy of Darwinism, offers a full and fair assessment of the status of the argument from design in light of both the advances of modern evolutionary biology and the thinking of today's philosophers - with special attention given to the supporters and critics of "intelligent design."" "The first comprehensive history and exposition of Western thought about design in the natural world, this important work suggests directions for our thinking as we move into the twenty-first century. A thoroughgoing guide to a perennially controversial issue, the book makes its own substantial contribution to the ongoing debate about the relationship between science and religion, and between evolution and its religious critics."

Maurie Beck,

Do you have a specific reference for the Michael Ruse theory? I would certainly like to read that.

Dear Mr. Anderson,

You write about slavery and the civil war. I have a question for you; Do you think we are headed towards a religious war in this country? Michael Ruse, a philospher of science, thinks that the modern christian fundamentalist movement has its roots in the south's defeat in the Civil War, due to a sense of victimhood. In some regards, I feel the civil war involved a clash between a more modern world and an unchanging Christian worldview that was under threat. Chris Hedges equates the christian right with theocratic fascists intent on making America ready for the second coming. Perhaps the Civil War never really ended, but only went on hiatus for 150 years.

You are right.