Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

There are a few responses too many from too many people for me to keep up.I see comments that I would like to address but they seem to be coming too fast and furious.I especially object to the poster saying I wrote a diatribe. I wrote no diatribe. It may be that that poster has a need to imagine me as a hateful person spewing out diatribes.But I think I have simply and soberly studied with you here what the Bible is saying on the subject matter.And to Ringo. You have a good point. But there is the morality of the law and the ritual of the law. This seems to be a distinction that the New Testament makes.Ie. all animals are clean to be eaten, says Jesus. Yet He does not nullify the morality related to things like marriage, divorce, fornication, murder. In fact He often made these matters MORE penetrating by touching not just the ourward action but the innermost motive.For this reason it is not so easy just to reject male with male sex as no more or less serious then eating shrimp and lobster. One is a level of morality. The other is more a matter of ritual.I do not say that it is always easy to discern the difference. But it is clear that Jesus terminated some ritual aspects of the law of Moses without terminating the moral standards.You have heard it said, you shall not murder. But I say unto you ...Not a negation here but a reinforcing and an uplifting. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That's just the point though: Leviticus doesn't make a distinction between homosexual activity and eating shellfish. The moral/ritual distinction is one that you're adding to the text. All animals being clean to be eaten refers to all of the arbitrary aspects of the law. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Let's take a closer look at what Jesus said about Sodom and Gomorrah. Here are the two lines you quoted in a fuller context:

quote:

---

Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

---

He is talking to his disciples, giving them instructions. His reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is in the context of explaining what will happen to towns that do not receive his disciples well. He makes no reference whatsoever to any sort of sexual activity.That's your evidence that Jesus disapproved of homosexuality? Color me unimpressed.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I don't think I will be able to keep up with the number of criticisms about what I wrote. I am outnumbered.At least I think subbie's comments are the more interesting to me at the moment.But here you say I have added something to the OT.Well, I am taking in the whole 66 books of the Bible as the plenary revelation of God. I don't consider using the New Testament as adding something in a wrong way to the revelation.Secondly, I suspect that you are refering to the "spirit of the law"
as a New Testament kind of concept ? If so you are also trying to understand the total picture using the New Testament.If so, you're saying that you can do so but I should not. That is not fair.Perhaps you can explain where you derive this letter Verses spirit of the law from ? Subbie - To subbie, I want to read your comments more carefully latter. I am familiar with the old view that the people of Sodom offended God because of some other reason, like not being very hospitable.I have also been familiar with the passage about Sodom's pride or idleness.At the moment I would only say that these reasons are not enough for me to remove the impact of thier homosexual activity as an offense and rebellion against God.It is quite true that other errors may have provided the atmosphere and backround for thier homosexual sins to ferment. And it is true that latter in Scripture some of those sins were mentioned by God.I cannot seriously use those passages to soften the effect of what Genesis says. God went to see of the actions of revolt against God were as seriouse as their cries against heaven indicated.I think this revolting cry up to heaven of Sodom involved thier rejection of nature's normal way of sexual attraction and activity. That is the way the Genesis story reads to me.They shook their fists against God concerning what THEY craved for in the realm of sexual pleasure.But you are right that latter the Scripture does mention the sin of their pride and complacency. Often very proud and idle people who have too much thinking to do invent evil things.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No, not really. Jesus' intention was to clean up Judaism, to get back to the basics. The Ten Commandments never mentioned either homosexuality or shellfish. The Levitical law was an add-on that did more to muddy the waters than anything else. (I've said before that in my personal opinion, it was designed to be impossible to obey, to keep the priests in a steady supply of oxburgers.)

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This sounds to me like you're more interested in reading into the scripture what you want to be there, rather than reading what it says and trying to understand the message that it is sending.Consider this question very carefully, and not just as a rhetorical device I'm employing to win an argument, but as a genuine question about something that doesn't make sense: Why did Jesus never say anything against homosexuality? Why did he refer to Sodom and Gomorrah only in the context of discussing how to treat strangers? To me, this provides compelling evidence of what he thought the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah was.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Your original comment. This was in response to this question. Definition of diatribe.

quote:

---

a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism

---

I think your comments about the "gay community" qualify as a diatribe. Yes you did try to give us your interpretation after the diatribe. We did not "study here", you told us what you believe and what you think is the only thing to believe. As you may have noticed, many of us disagree with this interpretation.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not if done right. Also, heterosexual people also have bumsecks. It can also be contracted because of heterosexual practices. The things you said have nothing to do with homosexuality. So, again, how is homosexuality physically destructive? They have announced that male on femael intercourse can be a source of the AIDS disease. No, it just means that your argument fails on this pint, since it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality does not, in any way damage the body. Not if done right. It's not hurting anyone, therefore, it's alright in my book. Do you stone children to death for not listening? No? Then why still consider homosexuality a sin? Jesus never said it was. But Sodom's sin wasn't homosexuality. So, a homosexual that accepts Jesus is ok? Even though Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin? Uhm, take from it what is good, and reject that which isn't?

umm so homosexsualety is not normal by natures standrads and the gay dog that i had a few years ago was some kind of unnatural satanic abomination and so are all the other 5% of mamalsthe dog that i had was a pure blood collie a friend of mine had 2 female collies they where and we wanted to mate them to ern some cash from the pups the 2 practically begged him to mate he dint not evan want to notice and in 14 days he did not try once, and when i got him home he raped the neighbors male German ShepherdEdited by frako, : No reason given.

Ringo, Theodoric, frako, Huntard,There are quite a few of you trying to hold my feet to the fire about whether or not the Bible has a teaching that homosexuality is an sin.I really don't think I need to say much more about this negative aspect of the matter. I wish I could from here on study the Bible here in the positive aspect of forgiveness, liberation, transformation, and conformity to the image of Christ.For the Christian the danger is that if I continue to argue and argue and argue that homosexuality in the Bible is a negative you will get the impression that there is only condemnation in the Bible. In fact some of you may adopt an attitude that I love the condemnation in the Bible.One poster vented his disgust with the Apostle Paul. I consider this to be a tragic deception on his part.The ministry of the Apostle Paul absolutely pioneers into the deepest experience of the resurrected and living Christ. It is the ministry of one EXPERIENCED in all manner of dynamic liberation from the power of that sin nature that we all were trapped with from our birth.But if I can never get to that but have to rehash again and again the transgression of the homosexual acts, some of you will only gloat that there is nothing but condemnation in my Bible.The best way for a man to love another man is Christ.
The best way for a woman to love another woman is Christ.
The best way for a man and woman to love each other is Christ.My emphasis here in studying this subject is not political or what laws on the books should be. My focus is God putting people into the realm of the living and available Christ: "But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God, both righteousness and sanctification and redemption. That as it is written, He who boasts let hm boast in the Lord." (1 Cor. 1:30,31) Since the expressed topic of this thread is "Condemn Gay Marriage, or Just Gay Rape" maybe I should stop posting to this thread, I think the condemnation part has been adaquately explained.Proof is not persuasion. I think the evidence is there in the Bible that gay marriage is condemened by God. I think the proof is there. You may simply refuse to be persuaded of it.Maybe I should go on to a thread where the more positive aspects of being put by God into the sphere and realm of Christ where Christ becomes man's righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Nope. YOU are saying it is. You aren't merely saying "this is just what the bible says, I have no opinion on the matter", but rather, you are injecting your own moral code when you say that homosexuals get HIV/AIDS strictly because they are gay.Now, as per the topic of the OP. The OP wished to address gay marriage, not just homosexuality. What you have done instead os went off on your personal tangent as to why being gay is bad, mmkay.{abe} You haven't even addressed the topic.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

But it is not about what the Bible teaches, it is about what YOUR chapter of Club Christian teaches, how YOUR chapter of Club Christian interprets what is said.Don't try and make YOUR position THE Christian position because that is simply not true.You speak only with the authority of YOUR chapter of Club Christian not for Christianity and certainly not for Christ.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Its a Bible Study.Any chapter I refered to was a chapter in the Bible. Why not if my position is based on good exegesis of the Bible ? Then again this could just be your attitude to reject good Bible exegesis by assigning it as my chatper of Club Christian.You probably prefer your Club Chapter of Christian Skeptic. I understand.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The OP says: Posturing looks good at least. Are you all sure you want to have contributions from Bible readers who regard the Bible as the word of God?Or is "fresh discussion" code language for "No Evangelical Christians Allowed" ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What do you mean "the spirit of the law"?Where in the Bible did you derive that concept of a "spirit of the law" ?