Thast just it, I have not said it is a sin. The bible has said it is a sin. I feel myself that it is not right, that is what God has shown to me. But that does not dictate how I treat a gay person, I still love them.
Wait a minute lets not split hairs here. You think the bible says homosexuality is a sin right? And you say that you agree with the bible, right? So you ARE saying that homosexuality is a sin! As for how that dictates how you treat others see below.
And if anyone tries to point out about how I am against same sex marriage, its not because I am against gays, its because I do not consider it a marriage. If there is a way for them to get all the legal rights, then go for it. But it is not a marriage.
Richard Dawkins says that language should be our servant and not our master. If we call gay marriage "civil unions" then the law can have different rights for civil unions then it has for marriage! In fact this is exsactly what has happened when we institute civil unions! If you realy think that gays should have all the leagal rights as straight people then you should support gay marrage, Call them civil unions in your private life if you want but IN A LEAGAL CONTEXT they should be called marrage. If you disagree then you must have some other reason for not wanting to allow them to marry. Perhaps it is biblical?
Lord I pray right here and now, that everyone in this thread would just understand the moral meaning of that verse, In Jesus's name, Amen.
Even if the "moral meaning" of this verse is what you claim it is, you are still saying that 3000 years ago you would have stoned a woman to death just for cheating on you. I find that monstorus.
Isn't that intrappment? A gay person asks you, is Homosexuality a sin? You repond yes, and then they say who are you to say that?
Why is it entrapment? How is asking a simple yes or no question entrapment? Do you think the bible says homosexuality is a sin? Do you think the bible is right when it says this? If you think it's a sin why are you ahsamed to say so, if you are not ashamed to say so then how is this entrapment?
I did however start a thread that posed the question of why is being Gay ok. I did not get any acceptable answers.
See my thread "Harm in homosexuality?"
Its not marriage, thats how I feel, you expect me to change how I feel? Its like calling a car an airplane.
Look call it what you want but if you don't call it marriage IN A LEGAL CONTEXT then people aren't going to have the same rights! Why does it bother you if people use words differently than you do; Praticularly in a legal context where they use words differently all the time?
I am not saying that it {stoning} is now {ok}, but back then it was permissable to do it. It what was needed to keep the people in line.
There is such an easy answer to this, and that is don't rape, and don't cheat. Only bad comes from it, so why do you support it?
PERMISSABLE? PERMISSABLE?
Alright its 3000 years ago. You are the high preist of the tribe of Levi and your people bring to you a woman who has been raped. They say she didn't cry out.
Well according to your logic she must have enjoyed it! And she should be stoned to death. "Why didn't you scream?" you say, "You knew you would get stoned to death if you didn't ?" Where is your easy answer now? Go ahead and say that you would stone her to death, say the law is a just law, but I don't think you are that inhuman.
The devil has won the battle in making the concept of cheating seem ok to you. But Jesus will win the war.
It is a very serious charge to accuse people of being won over by the devil. I don't see how you think this is going to help the discussion. I can only see this offending people and cannot imagine how you think it will win people over to your side.
It seems to me we just have had such a history of softening our laws to the point that people can now get away with murder.
You may think its not right now to stone a woman for cheating, but tell me a woman cheating is right.
When did I say I thought cheating was ok? I said that if I had a wife and found out she was cheating I would divorce her, or seek couples counceling. This means that I think there is something wrong with cheating.
It sounds like you are saying the passage should be interpreted as follows: "If a woman has been raped her rapist should be stoned to death, the woman should be stoned to death if she was not raped but is an adulteress, if she didn't scream she is probably an adulteress. But she may or may not be an aduteress independant of whether or not she screamed." So why mention the thing about screaming at all?
So you think we should "harden up" our laws to allow stoneing again?
It was wrong to stone people 3000 years ago. It is wrong to stone people now, it has ALWAYS been wrong to stone people! You can try to justify this passage any way you want, you can say that they might deserve it, you can say that we all deserve it, you can swallow the sky and drink the ocean but it will not make stoning a rape victim or even an adulterss right!
™ Version 4.2
