People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

TL, very, very well said.I think you've covered it in a few paragraphs what the rest of us hadn't gotten so clear in pages of posts.Thank you.As being areligious and even anti I would of course agree that there is the danger in that kind of thinking (or not thinking sometimes) but that doesn't say that the dangerous side has to win out that is in the hands (or minds) of the individuals.

I think that echinacea is corn flower.

Why thank you I haven't seen it written before and have always had it wrong.

So this removes all the OT rules? and that is way we don't stone ppl anymore or kill for swearing?So all the OT rules are now null and void?

This passage (Mat 15:19 ) is all that is left to determine which are laws which must be followed and which not? Are there any other hints of what is now a "sin" and not? What are the prescribed punishments?Who says these are levitical laws and not a new list of rules. Additionally, in this context, what is "sexual imorality"?

So people who have sex while the women is menstrating can't be ministers and should be subject to abuse and death threats?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what my motive is in this particular case.I guess if you're inconsistant then it might result in reactions something like mockery. If not it is just an interest in what different beliefs there are.I don't usually care much about religious beliefs but got a bit interested in where this was going. I don't think my reaction, this time is mockery, more mild amusement perhaps.Zealot, so what if I mock? As long as it is the belief and not the person. My opinion shouldn't count all that much anyway. I've sure had worse than mockery directed at me personally and I don't let it bother me much as at all, why should you?

Well, I can understand not wanting to waste time doing research or writing things up here if you feel that it will be ignored. We all make judgements about who is worth responding too.I think it is generally a good idea to respond with an assumption that the poster is being genuince but perhaps limit the amount of effort until you see how they react.Since this whole forum tends to be only populated by those with pretty firmly established views on one side or the other I don't think you are being reasonable if you expect anything but an adversarial approach. You just have to take it as being part of the game. As long as the individual is willing to respond to what you post, even if it is very strongly negative, they are at least playing fair and putting in effort too.I think there is a view in which the Dr Laura letter is valid. It still hasn't been made clear to me what is left of OT rules. It also seems to me that there are individuals who use OT statements as a justificiation for their opposition to some things (such as same sex mariage) but then conveniently ignore other things. This is what the Dr Laura letter points out. Unless someone clarifies how the issues raised there there are remaining questions.

Zealot, I agree that there is a tone of mockery. Both sides engage in that a bit too frequently ( me too ). Let's all just take them in stride and show how grown up we are by ignoring these little rhetorical florishes, shall we?However, Zealot, I read a great deal about how we are supposed to use the Bible for some many things. There seem to be individuals who feel that there is nothing else they need to read.As well, there seem to be as many interpretations as there are people doing the interpreting.In that context it seems to make sense to have to spend time probling and re-trying to get what someone is saying about it clear.So far what I have gotten is a sense that the OT has been in some way "overridden" by the new testament. At the same time other parts of the OT are still to be followed firmely. I think it fair that there be some confusion under these circumstances.Myself, I still haven't seen a clear, one-piece, concise statement of what in the OT is no longer applicable and what is. This needs to have the reasoning behind the split as well. I'll I recall seeing posted is a part of a sentence or two that isn't nearly as detailed as the original statements about what was and what was not sin.I don't recall, for example, seeing anything about slavery being added in as a bad thing or that the specifics about treatment of slaves are not longer valid. I have been told that less than two centuries ago the prevailing view of large numbers of Christians in the US was that the bible explictity made slavery the "natural order" of things. What reasons did they use for that belief and what reasons would one use to refute them? It is hard to understand how both views can be so firmly based on the same biblical text isn't it?Again, back to the mockery. I have tried to convey to some of the believers the concern that I have had expressed to me by a number of Christians (both acquaintences and close friends) about what fundamentalism does to the religion as a whole. The views of these people are the views of the majority of Christians you know.When individuals use the Bible to try to support statements that are demonstratable wrong and when some of them (selected web sites for example) lie about things to support that they bring mockery on the Bible and the whole religion.This is, in my mind, exactly parallel to the kind of aversion that the fundamentalist islamists being on Islam when they commit attrocities in the name of Allah. It is paralled by the death threats that the newly ordained bishop has received because he is gay. You don't think those threats came from athiests do you? Or from united church members?

Since you seem to be saying Holmes is wrong why don't you demonstrate that he is. You simply attack him and not what he has to say. That's not furthering the discussion at all. I can't speak for anyone else but I think you are waaaay overstating this. lol. Proving the Bible wrong is unlikely to be in Holmes' top 10, 100 or even 1,000 things. It may be what you worship but it just isn't more than an interesting area of diverting discussion for some of us.

Zealot:
(from web of online dictionaries)
One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
A fanatically committed person.
Zealot A member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.I don't think I need to add anything to that.