Gay Marriage

[firefly001]

I don't know what Bible you're reading from, whatever. The Old Testament is there for us to know what happened and to learn from them, like learn from others and your mistakes. The New Testament applies to us, the present and the future. Nobody's dissecting any thing, we're talking about gay marriage/relationships so I gave info on what it pertained too; not jumping off topic and talking about something that has nothing to do with the issue. And don't we all remember certain versus that we feel we should remember? Don't some of us only take what we want from the Bible and discard the rest like it's irrelevant. Let's just leave it as am a do me and you do you, how about that. By the way I'm not affiliated with any church, when I was younger, I went to all of them. I have no preference, but it seems everyone has a different way of doing the same thing. Don't see how you get different versions from the same Bible. So Good luck to you all and peace out!   

[firefly001]

One more thing you all don't know me like that so don't accuse me of not reading or following the laws of the Bible. I treat people well, I'm still a virgin and that's by choice(trust me there's plenty who tempted me), I pray, read my Bible and continue to do what's needed of me. Nobody's perfect but I do my best.I'm not trying to get any body to do anything, I stated my views and beliefs and I'm standing firm behind them. You all are grown folks with enough common sense, and knowledge and have the resources to back you up to make right and moral choices.

If you all read your bibles you would not ask why there are gay people. Why is there hunger?, homeless people?, sickness? and death? Earthquakes?, tornados?,floods?. You all should know the answers to these questions and shame on you if you don't. I'm a young adult I should be getting support for at least having what I believe are moral values, for believing in God, and trusting in the Word. Most teens and young adults have a don't care attitude and  get into situations they get into because of it. I feel sorry for our future generation if what we all have is a everybody do what you want attitude. 

[kesto4]

Quote:
This same book says blatantly immoral things such as:

1)  Stone disobedient children
2)  If a man rapes a woman, the man must pay the woman's father 50 silver pieces and then marry the woman because he violated her
3)  Slavery is fine
4)  A woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned

Sadly, some of these are found just a few verses before or after the verses you're referring to (the first one is just THREE verses before Leviticus 20:13, which many Christians use as "support" for their stance against homosexuality).  And there are dozens and dozens more just like this everywhere in the Bible.

It says plain silly things such as:

1)  Eating shellfish is an abomination (how about that, eating shellfish and homosexuality are both abominations...real logical)
2)  Wearing wool-blended clothing is wrong
3)  Deport any male and female who have sex while the female is on her period

This list also goes on and on.

You sound like the Church of Christ you only remember the versuses want to remember.

You just copied and pasted what the other person did and you are almost all wrong.
1. It does not say that, it says they should be punished
2. He did violate her...people go to prison for raping people. Are you an ignorant?
3. It does not say "slavery is fine". The whole chapter of Exodus is condemning slavery.
4. Do you realize back then our culture wasn't as pathetic as it was now? Rarely would anyone lose their virginity out of wedlock. It was a very big deal then. Many people came up to Jesus and asked if they could stone a girl who did this and Jesus replied, "The first one of you who has done no wrong may throw the first stone." None of them were sinless and did not stone the girl.

1. It is only saying you shouldn't eat fish that don't have scales and fins.
2. It is wool and linen
3. Its not like anybody does this anyways

[liljp617]

You sound like the Church of Christ you only remember the versuses want to remember.

That's precisely what people who believe in the Bible do.  This thread is a perfect example.  People are quoting random stuff from the Bible about the morals of homosexuality and how it shouldn't be accepted because the Bible says so.  So, again, I ask why those same people don't follow the other moral guidelines very clearly outlined throughout the Bible.  The point is that you can't quote the Bible and try to take morals on homosexuality away from it unless you're also prepared to promote the other morals such as stoning adulterers and disobedient children.

[liljp617]

You just copied and pasted what the other person did and you are almost all wrong.
1. It does not say that, it says they should be punished
2. He did violate her...people go to prison for raping people. Are you an ignorant?
3. It does not say "slavery is fine". The whole chapter of Exodus is condemning slavery.
4. Do you realize back then our culture wasn't as pathetic as it was now? Rarely would anyone lose their virginity out of wedlock. It was a very big deal then. Many people came up to Jesus and asked if they could stone a girl who did this and Jesus replied, "The first one of you who has done no wrong may throw the first stone." None of them were sinless and did not stone the girl.

I didn't copy and paste anything.  I'm the same person who asked the same question to someone else earlier in the thread.

1)  It says it very clearly:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death..." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Not stoning, but carries the same weight:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

2)  I don't know what your point is.  The point is that you can't take moral views from certain passages of the Bible then completely ignore other passages that promote specific moral views.  The consequences of rape in this instance are clear:  He who rapes a woman is not to be put in prison; he who rapes a woman is to pay her father 50 silver pieces, then must marry the woman (by default, the woman must marry her attacker).  Stated very clearly in the Bible...yet we don't follow it.  Why?

3)  Great...except for:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

(Notice, Exodus/NT)

Etc. etc.  There are many more...

4)  How "pathetic" our culture was is irrelevant.  This is the "infallible word of God."  Surely it should have universal relevance.

To my knowledge, she was an adulterer, not a woman who simply was not a virgin on her wedding night.  An adulterer is very different than someone who has lost their virginity.

1. It is only saying you shouldn't eat fish that don't have scales and fins.
2. It is wool and linen
3. Its not like anybody does this anyways

1)  Hence the use of the word "shellfish" 
2)  Hence, "wool-blended clothing" 
3)  Anybody does what?  Has intercourse while the woman is on her period?  Sure they do... -.-

If you're referring to the fact that people who do this aren't deported...precisely my point.


All in all, the question remains:

Why don't you follow the other moral guidelines clearly laid out everywhere in the Bible, but you feel no problem with quoting the Bible and speaking in opposition to the act of homosexuality and same sex marriage using the Bible as your support?  The Bible is "the word of God,"  doesn't that mean it's all equally as important and should be followed all the same?  If it came from God, why would he say to stone adulterers if that's not what he wanted to happen?

[liljp617]

Let me ask you this.  Where in the world do think that our judicial system started from, who originally gave us the list of things that was wrong.  Because if it did not come from God then where did it come from.

Which judicial system?  Mankind's first judicial system, or the judicial system of the United States?


What you're asking is:  Where does human morality come from?  Correct?

As a whole, it certainly doesn't come from the Bible or any other holy book if that's what you're implying.  If it did, the US wouldn't have any laws based different morals than the Bible (or any other "infallible" holy book) states, and morals worldwide would be much more similar than they currently are.  If it was based on the Bible, we would stone adulterers instead of simply frowning upon them.  We would stone disobedient children instead of trying to discipline them with rather softer methods.  We wouldn't put rape victims in prison, we would make them pay a fine and marry the woman they raped, and make the woman marry her rapist.  And so on.

On the topic of the US's judicial system, there clearly hasn't always been judicial systems of this nature.  Logical judicial systems based on evidence and fair trial by juries are fairly new developments in the grand scheme of mankind's existence.  The judicial systems found in many democracies around the world gradually evolved over time.  For centuries, "justice" relied solely on retributive justice, or eye-for-an-eye.  It took a long while for people to move out of this phase and develop civilized methods for acquiring justice against criminals and wrongdoers.  People didn't just wake up one day and have the brilliant idea of having organized trials based on evidence, testimonies, and judgment from peers...

If we're discussing the very earliest morals from mankind, there are hundreds of books on the subject and it would take hours upon hours to even break the ice on that subject.  There are numerous suggestions on how/why morality developed.  One of the many is that when mankind lived in very small, secluded villages, it was absolutely mandatory to operate with altruistic motives and help their fellow villagers simply to make it through the night alive.  Those who did not operate with these altruistic motives did not receive help from their peers, for obvious reasons.  They died of starvation or were killed by wild animals, for instance.  Clearly, most people wouldn't want that to happen to them, so most, if not all, were altruistic to their fellow people.

Obviously this is a very short explanation of even that single suggestion...there is plenty of reading available on the subject if you really wish to understand it fully.  I don't think you'll be convinced by anything I say, so I won't go on and on unless you really want me to (I have no problem doing so, I just don't feel like writing forever if people aren't interested).

[liljp617]

I don't know what Bible you're reading from, whatever. The Old Testament is there for us to know what happened and to learn from them, like learn from others and your mistakes. The New Testament applies to us, the present and the future. Nobody's dissecting any thing, we're talking about gay marriage/relationships so I gave info on what it pertained too; not jumping off topic and talking about something that has nothing to do with the issue. And don't we all remember certain versus that we feel we should remember? Don't some of us only take what we want from the Bible and discard the rest like it's irrelevant. Let's just leave it as am a do me and you do you, how about that. By the way I'm not affiliated with any church, when I was younger, I went to all of them. I have no preference, but it seems everyone has a different way of doing the same thing. Don't see how you get different versions from the same Bible. So Good luck to you all and peace out!   

So the morals found in the OT shouldn't be followed in the present world?

Unfortunately, you still have people who want to take this stance, then turn right around and want to quote the OT on issues such as homosexuality.  If it is irrelevant to the present world in terms of moral views, then it is irrelevant to moral views.  You can't say the morals promoted in the OT are irrelevant to the present, then try to use the OT to form current moral views or support a specific moral stance on something.  It doesn't work that way; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

On the subject, however, Jesus clearly states in numerous places in the NT that he did not come to abolish the OT or the "old ways."  He confirmed many of the historical accounts of the OT, referred to it as the "word of God," and stated "the scripture cannot be broken."  He stated: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished."



I'm not jumping off topic.  I'm asking how people can use the Bible (the OT specifically) as support for their stance in opposition to homosexuality, but they refuse to carry out or even promote the other moral guidelines in the OT.

If you all read your bibles you would not ask why there are gay people. Why is there hunger?, homeless people?, sickness? and death? Earthquakes?, tornados?,floods?. You all should know the answers to these questions and shame on you if you don't. I'm a young adult I should be getting support for at least having what I believe are moral values, for believing in God, and trusting in the Word. Most teens and young adults have a don't care attitude and  get into situations they get into because of it. I feel sorry for our future generation if what we all have is a everybody do what you want attitude. 

I have read it.  More than once.  Along with Biblical scholarly works from both Christians and non-Christians.  Honestly, I'm going to have to argue that's more than the vast majority of Christians have done with THEIR book.

May I ask what the answer is to why there are "homeless people, sickness," etc.?  The Bible clearly states and implies that the Christian God is omniscient (all knowledgeable) and that he carries out predestination/determinism.  If your answer is going to be "free will" (which it likely is), then you open a new issue.

Why do you deserve some kind of special treatment because you're a Christian or believe in God?  What makes that something worthy of being put on a pedestal?  Do you enjoy being lumped into an organization responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths, suppression of knowledge and progress, and oppression of many groups over centuries, among other things?  Why does it matter if you "trust the word?"  You should get special credit for believing "the word" of a 2000 year old book written by uneducated, ignorant individuals and edited by the hands of thousands of people with agendas over thousands of years?

Your spiritual beliefs deserve no more extra respect or credit than your favorite sports team or favorite food dish.  Drop the ego infesting your religion.

[Trixiebabie]

Why can't we just allow others to be happy? no one asked you to turn gay, they just want to have rights like everyone else. 

[aspenl]

Intended for liljp617:
(On the stance that the bible contradicts itself.)

In my bible there is both an old testament and a new testament.  The old testament in name referring to the old covenant made between the Lord and the people or in other words the law of Moses.  The new testament refers to the new covenant established when Christ reined on the earth or the law of Christ.  As far as I can tell you are only including the old testament in your judgments and not any of the new testament.  You have been referring to the law of Moses, let me explain why this is not valid.

The higher law (the law of Christ) was given to Moses by the Lord before the ‘law of Moses’ was given.  The reason for the law of Moses was because the people would not heed the higher law and therefore needed a stricter law.  Israel rebelled and manifest such gross unworthiness that their God took from them the power whereby they could have become a kingdom of priests and of kings and gave them instead a lesser law, a law of carnal commandments, a preparatory gospel, a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ and the fullness of his gospel.  He gave them instead the law of Moses.  The standards behind both laws are the same, God still expects the same thing from us whether it be under the law of Moses or the law of Christ.  If we follow the law of Christ we will also be following the law of Moses.

The particular things spoken of in the scriptures as the law of Moses were the ordinances and performances that were “added because of transgressions.” (Gal. 3:19) 

They were “the divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Heb. 9:10) 

They were “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” (Eph. 2:15)

Israel was given “a very strict law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.”  The law of Moses was given to point the attention of the people forward to Christ and that all things in it “were types of things to come.”  For instance in the old testament the first born lamb without blemish was sacrificed as a testament of repentance, whereas the new testament does away with that tradition and teaches that Christ is the sacrifice and we take bread and wine to symbolize our acceptance of that sacrifice.

Paul said “The law (of Moses) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” (Gal. 3:24)

It was “the law of carnal commandments”(Heb 7:16) because it was given to teach those belonging to the chosen race to bridle their passions, to overcome the lusts of the flesh to triumph over carnal things, and to advance to the place where the Spirit of the Lord could have full flow in their hearts.

Let me illustrate again.  In one of your examples you stated that the bible teaches it is okay to stone.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery.  The Pharisees (religious leaders who still followed the law of Moses) brought a woman to Christ and said “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:  but what sayest thou?”  Christ replied “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (St. John 8:4-7)  Now there is no person in the entire history of the world who has not sinned in some small way except Christ himself.  Therefore none of them could say they had not sinned and therefore could not cast the first stone.  The woman had sinned and been brought before the Lord yet she was not stoned.  Christ is teaching us a higher law and it is not okay to stone people for their sins because we are not without sin.  Therefore it is only his place to judge someone for a sin because he is the only without sins.  Christ is the only one who can ‘cast a stone.’

On the stance of homosexuality.  Gen 19:5 refers to Sodom.  Later in the same chapter it speaks of the city being destroyed.
“With the male you shall not lie as one lies with the woman.” (Lev 18:22)
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Rom. 1:27)

It also says eating seafood is an abomination.

It also says that if a man is caught raping a woman, he must pay 50 silver pieces to her father then marry the woman because he violated her.

It also okays slavery.

As for the items listed above.  You may be correct ‘we Christians’ may not know our bible.  Please give me references to where you found this information in our bible so that I may be ‘better educated.’  Best regards. 

[LittleDebbieG]

And don't we all remember certain versus that we feel we should remember? Don't some of us only take what we want from the Bible and discard the rest like it's irrelevant.

I feel sorry for our future generation if what we all have is a everybody do what you want attitude

Again, not trying to sound rude, but how can you feel sorry for the current and future generations for their do-what-you-want attitude... yet say that you will pick which parts of the Bible you wish to follow (discarding the rest)? Does that not make you a part of the problem that you speak of?

Perhaps that in itself is the biggest reason why religious beliefs should never be used to create/defend laws. The parts you wish to follow, somebody else may want to discard... yet the parts that others wish to follow, you have discarded.

On the stance of homosexuality.  Gen 19:5 refers to Sodom.  Later in the same chapter it speaks of the city being destroyed.

But if Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality, then what does this passage mean:

"Luke 10:10-12"

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

As for the items listed above.  You may be correct ‘we Christians’ may not know our bible.  Please give me references to where you found this information in our bible so that I may be ‘better educated.’  Best regards. 

Here are a few:

"Leviticus 19:27"

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

"Leviticus 19:19"

Keep my decrees.
Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

"Leviticus 15"

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any man has a bodily discharge, the discharge is unclean. Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:

" 'Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. Anyone who touches his bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If the man with the discharge spits on someone who is clean, that person must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.

" 'When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the LORD to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and give them to the priest. The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the LORD for the man because of his discharge.

" 'When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. When a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

" 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

" 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

" 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

" 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

" 'You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.' "

These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

"Leviticus 11"

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Say to the Israelites: 'Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.

" 'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

" 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

" 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

" 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

" 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every animal that has a split hoof not completely divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you; whoever touches the carcass of any of them will be unclean. Of all the animals that walk on all fours, those that walk on their paws are unclean for you; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. They are unclean for you.

" 'Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon. Of all those that move along the ground, these are unclean for you. Whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean till evening. When one of them dies and falls on something, that article, whatever its use, will be unclean, whether it is made of wood, cloth, hide or sackcloth. Put it in water; it will be unclean till evening, and then it will be clean. If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean. A spring, however, or a cistern for collecting water remains clean, but anyone who touches one of these carcasses is unclean. If a carcass falls on any seeds that are to be planted, they remain clean. But if water has been put on the seed and a carcass falls on it, it is unclean for you.

" 'If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

" 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten. You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable. Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

" 'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.' "

Now, you mentioned:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Rom. 1:27)

So let's look at the previous passages:

"Romans 1:24-27"

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Inflamed with lust. That is their sin.

Job 31:11-12

For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own.

With these passages in mind, I have to ponder the notion that it is not-so-much the fact that they are sleeping within the same gender... but that they are sleeping around at all that they are sinners.

"1 Corinthians 6:12-18"

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

It very well could mean that the lust itself is a sin, but that since it is for the same gender, it is made a "worse" sin. The ambiguity of translation is such that two people could read the same passage and pull several meanings to it. The problem is not-so-much in the translation... but that everytime a new translation comes out, words and phrases are manipulated and changed to match the translators feelings and possible agenda. After all, at the time of these happenings and original scriptures - there was no word or identity for homosexuality and homosexual relations. Even the word sodomite did not exist until after Christ was already gone from this world.

Even in itself, homosexual is not even Latin-based. It is a combination of Greek and Latin.

Beyond the mistranslations and ambiguity of verbage and meaning, this passage gives me this feeling that we are to love one another (no matter the gender) because it is divine will.

"1 John 4:7-12"

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Also:

"1 Corinthians 13:4-8"

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

So who are we to say that it is wrong for two men to love each other? Who are we to say that it is wrong for two females to truly be in love?

So again, I say: If my current husband was born with female anatomy, I would love him/her no less.

[mlainez]

whoa! People, chill out! the question was about "gay marriages"....

[RosaSalazar]

I stand by gay marriage 100%. Who are we as individuals to control what another person does? People are referring to the BIBLE, give me a break. The bible is man made. Another human wrote it. I go by the bible the same way I go by Dr. Suess's children books. It is just words on paper. Everyone is so concerned about the little things like gay marriage that they are missing the big things. Rapist, Murderers, Child Molesters, and things that affect everyone. I say more people should be concerned about smokers than gay marriage.

At least smoking is slowly killing everyone unlike gay marriage.

[LittleDebbieG]

whoa! People, chill out! the question was about "gay marriages"....

I know.  I just really enjoy debating.

[liljp617]

Intended for liljp617:
(On the stance that the bible contradicts itself.)

In my bible there is both an old testament and a new testament.  The old testament in name referring to the old covenant made between the Lord and the people or in other words the law of Moses.  The new testament refers to the new covenant established when Christ reined on the earth or the law of Christ.  As far as I can tell you are only including the old testament in your judgments and not any of the new testament.  You have been referring to the law of Moses, let me explain why this is not valid.

The higher law (the law of Christ) was given to Moses by the Lord before the ‘law of Moses’ was given.  The reason for the law of Moses was because the people would not heed the higher law and therefore needed a stricter law.  Israel rebelled and manifest such gross unworthiness that their God took from them the power whereby they could have become a kingdom of priests and of kings and gave them instead a lesser law, a law of carnal commandments, a preparatory gospel, a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ and the fullness of his gospel.  He gave them instead the law of Moses.  The standards behind both laws are the same, God still expects the same thing from us whether it be under the law of Moses or the law of Christ.  If we follow the law of Christ we will also be following the law of Moses.

The particular things spoken of in the scriptures as the law of Moses were the ordinances and performances that were “added because of transgressions.” (Gal. 3:19) 

They were “the divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” (Heb. 9:10) 

They were “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” (Eph. 2:15)

Israel was given “a very strict law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.”  The law of Moses was given to point the attention of the people forward to Christ and that all things in it “were types of things to come.”  For instance in the old testament the first born lamb without blemish was sacrificed as a testament of repentance, whereas the new testament does away with that tradition and teaches that Christ is the sacrifice and we take bread and wine to symbolize our acceptance of that sacrifice.

Paul said “The law (of Moses) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” (Gal. 3:24)

It was “the law of carnal commandments”(Heb 7:16) because it was given to teach those belonging to the chosen race to bridle their passions, to overcome the lusts of the flesh to triumph over carnal things, and to advance to the place where the Spirit of the Lord could have full flow in their hearts.

Let me illustrate again.  In one of your examples you stated that the bible teaches it is okay to stone.

In the story of the woman taken in adultery.  The Pharisees (religious leaders who still followed the law of Moses) brought a woman to Christ and said “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:  but what sayest thou?”  Christ replied “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (St. John 8:4-7)  Now there is no person in the entire history of the world who has not sinned in some small way except Christ himself.  Therefore none of them could say they had not sinned and therefore could not cast the first stone.  The woman had sinned and been brought before the Lord yet she was not stoned.  Christ is teaching us a higher law and it is not okay to stone people for their sins because we are not without sin.  Therefore it is only his place to judge someone for a sin because he is the only without sins.  Christ is the only one who can ‘cast a stone.’

The Bible doesn't just contradict itself between the OT and NT.  It contradicts itself all over the place in each individual testament.  There aren't only blatantly immoral things in the OT, there are blatantly immoral things in the NT.

I predominantly bring up the OT to prove my point against people using the OT as support for their stance against homosexuality.

On another note, what do you make of the numerous times Jesus himself is quoted as saying and implying that he did not come to abolish the old ways at all, that the OT is the "infallible word of God" and should be followed as such, etc.?

I have to disagree that the standards behind both Covenants are the same.  How could they be?  Using just your example (and there are dozens of others I could use), one says to stone adulterers, the other implies not to.

 

On the stance of homosexuality.  Gen 19:5 refers to Sodom.  Later in the same chapter it speaks of the city being destroyed.
“With the male you shall not lie as one lies with the woman.” (Lev 18:22)
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” (Rom. 1:27)

What I took away from your post is that the Old Covenant shouldn't be followed in any literal sense because Jesus brought a New Covenant, a higher law than in the past.  Correct?

Again, how does one take this stance on the Old Covenant and OT, then immediately turn around and start quoting the Old Covenant and OT in a literal sense to support a stance against homosexuality?  I've been asking this question for three pages.  It doesn't seem like a hard question to me.

If Jesus brought a higher law than the Old Covenant, and this higher law is the one to be followed, then application of the OT in any literal sense to form any moral view to the present day is illegitimate.  Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.  If the Old Covenant is lesser than the New Covenant, and we should follow the New Covenant, you can't use the Old Covenant as support for any moral stance on homosexuality (or anything else).

This has been my point for the past three pages.

As for the items listed above.  You may be correct ‘we Christians’ may not know our bible.  Please give me references to where you found this information in our bible so that I may be ‘better educated.’  Best regards. 

On the subject of not eating shellfish:

Leviticus 11:9-12

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.  And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:  They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.  Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

On the subject of a rapist having to marry the victim:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

As for slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Exodus 21:2-6 NLT  (Notice New Testament)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB (Notice New Testament)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

There are more, but I won't bore you.


But again, much of this is all really beside the point.  The point is that people want to use the OT to support their stance against homosexuality (and same sex marriage in this case).  But when questioned by others and shown the other heinous, brutal moral views throughout the Bible, they want to claim the OT is no longer relevant...yet they still want to uphold it only to support their stance against homosexuality.  It can't and doesn't work that way.

[aspenl]

In response to LittleDebbieG:
(On the topic of Christian beliefs)

I am not sure you read my whole post.  As you reiterated what was said in it.  Genesis through Deuteronomy states the old law, of which Exodus through Deuteronomy is the law as put forth by Moses.  The many quotes posted were based in Leviticus, which is the stricter law of Moses.  In the New Testament Christ teaches that that the law of Moses is put behind us and we are given a new law by which we are to be judged.  “A new covenant, he hath made the first old.  Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13) “And for this cause he (Christ) is the mediator of the new testament” (Heb. 9:15) Therefore these verses in Leviticus show just how strict the law had to be in this time, because these people would not hearken to the word of the Lord.  However this law was done away with by the Lord himself so these laws do not apply to us today.  Are there any references to where these laws are reinstated in the new law (the current law)?

As for Luke 10: 10-12 Christ is instructing his disciples to go and teach the gospel to all nations and people.  Christ sent these people out to teach so therefore they represented Christ.  Any man who rejects the servants or prophets of God, rejects God himself.  “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.”  Christ obviously views the outright rejection of God especially after being taught, to be a worse sin then even adultery and other sex immorality.

It was mentioned that the bible itself may not have been translated 100% correctly and this is therefore the reason of so many different interpretations of the doctrines therein.  In this I agree, (I read from the King James Version) , it is known that prophets or men of God did not translate this version of the bible from Hebrew to English.  They were men of the world who knew much of the Hebrew language and were hired by King James to translate these records into his language so he could study its contents for himself instead of taking the religious leaders word for everything they taught.  We do not have a direct translation but a translation of men.  If we could read it in Hebrew I’m sure we would find many topics much easier to understand.

You quoted Romans 1:24-27.  Your bible reads different from mine although they read similar.  The KJV of this scripture reads:
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.  Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Verses 22-23 also reads like this, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

“The glory of the incorruptible God” as I take it in these verses is referring to the blessing given to mankind to be able to procreate.  If you believe they are defiling this privilege by something other then homosexuality, please specify.

I agree with you on the topic of lust.  Lust always prefaces adultery or any other sex immorality.  Therefore it is the first sin, however not the only sin.  “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)  The Lord teaches here that it is not good enough to simply not commit adultery or other sex immorality, we need to cleanse ourselves completely in order to be free of the sin, this includes our mind, so therefore lusting is also a sex offense before God.

As for Job 31:11-12 the KJV reads quite differently.  Although you may be right in the translation of it.  KJV reads:  “For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.  For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.”
From the verses before this I can see why these verses are interpreted as referring to lust.  I do not disagree with you, lust is the sin that prefaces all other sex immoralities, therefore it is a sin to avoid or condone, and certainly is the “fire that consumeth to destruction” for it leads to some of the most grievous sins known to mankind.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 6:12-18 the KJV again reads differently. It reads:
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.  Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.”

Above is the way the KJV initially read.  The prophet of this dispensation includes a revision in the footnotes of the bible because verse 12 was not initially translated correctly.  My religion reads it thus, “All these things are not lawful unto me, and all these things are not expedient.  All things are not lawful for me, therefore I will not be brought under the power of any.”

The Lord views our bodies as sacred and are to only be used for the Lords purposes, not fornication. “For two…shall be one flesh.”  Therefore married with one mind and one purpose.  In the same breath it says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” Therefore we are to be one in mind and purpose with our spouse as well as one in mind and purpose with the Lord.  The Lord describes the people as the bride and himself as the bridegroom and when we forsake all else and follow him he symbolically refers to the union as a ‘marriage.’  Both instances are referring to marriage, the first in a physical sense and the second in a spiritual sense. 

As for the ‘love one another’, I agree with this statement, however with the retranslation I do not see how it is relevant to this passage.

As relating to 1st John 4:7-12.  We again see a difference in texts.  KJV reads:
“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
No man hath seen God at any time (modern revelation inserts ‘except them who believe’).  If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

There are more types of love then those that are the base of sexual intercourse.  For instance if you are a parent and say you love your child.  It refers to a different kind of love then the love you may have for your significant other.  The Latin base of the word love means ‘to please’ and the Old English is ‘dear.’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary)  So I guess I am wondering where you get the back up that the Lord is referring to sexual love in this passage.

I too believe we are to love one another, for we are all children of God.  Therefore we are all brothers and sisters and should love all as we do our siblings, of whom we forgive the many wrong acts because we love them unconditionally.  We may not approve of the way our siblings offend us, but we love them anyway.  To all a good day.  May we show those we most care about that we truly love them today.