Religious/Political Question

[XERXES]

So answer me why 90% of us voted for Kerry? Also, i did say other reasons why i voted for Kerry besides my race.

Because I think they have been attacked and overwhelmed with a 'gospel of fear' for years...they have bought the lies and complained about their lives, yet clung tightly to the welfare lines...it's a vicious cycle. People complain about the welfare system, well guess what, that's a Democratic program installed by Dems- it's failure has nothing to do with Republicans...

I digress...

Here's something interesting:

An October poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that studies black issues, showed Bush getting a favorable rating among 45.5 percent of those who describe themselves as black Christian conservatives.

news article

[sturm und drang]

Originally posted by: mavsman55
Sturm, remember how the bible was written thousands of years ago, when slavery existed?

Modern day's equivalent of slavery is work. Do you obey your boss?

That is exactly my point, Mavsman. You just took a passage from the Bible and drew an analogy between yesterday and today – you are interpreting it figuratively, not literally. If you took the whole thing literally, as you claim to do, you would necessarily have to believe that slavery (the real kind - not the figurative slavery you mention) is moral and divinely-ordained.

We all read the Bible figuratively and interpret in different ways. Yours and mine just happen to be quite different...

[capitalcity]

[quote]
Originally posted by: Nash13

NASH - why is it that persons of your race who, like you just did, expose or publicly question the actions so-called "African-American leaders" are looked upon as collaborators and labeled Uncle Toms?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But i said what i said about Sharpton and Jackson because they are both Reverends that disobey God's words. Sowhat you call Uncle Tom i call Sacreligious and Unholy.


I guess thats my point - I (as a white person) couldn't question the legitimacy, insult, or deride the statements of Sharpton or Jackson because some will insinuate my comments are, in part, racially motivated.Even in taking that stance are you percieved as a sellout for not supporting those who are perhaps unethical and immoral but nonetheless fighting for the rights of the discriminated and disinfranchised?

I cannot (and do not) use the word "Uncle Tom". That word, just like the N-word, is 'owned' by the black race.

My question to you is - Are Sharpton and Jackson unassailable figures in your community? Or can they, or their opinions, or their political leanings be called into question without the (black) individual being percieved as a traitor.

If the answer is in whole or in part yes, then that is why I feel 90% of the black community votes democrat. Because voting republican is the hard thing to do, and why obstacize yourself in black circles over politics. Voting republican is seen not as a choice of politics but a choice of "the team" you're on.

[u2sarajevo]

Well capital.... I have a problem with what you said. I am not African American, so I don't know for sure that the situation you describe is indeed true. But even if it was, why would that force an African American voter to vote Democrat if that is not what they truly think is best for them? It's not like you get branded with a Republican seal if you vote Republican. It is very common for voters to not discuss the way they voted (and widely respected not to ask).

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: dalmations202

Maybe seems illogical, but yes their is some biblical backing.

1) Satan offers dominion to Jesus
2) Satan and Job --- only God will not allow his death
3) In Joshua 10:13 and 2Sam1:18 the bible mentions the book of Jasher --- read it --- it is a history of Genesis through Moses or so.
4) There are actually several other places, but I need to dig them up.....PM me if you need more information.

I probably shouldn't bog down this thread, but should start another one instead. (Or perhaps should not mention it at all.) But what I was getting at was *not* to question whether "Satan" controls the Earth, but rather to question how "God," at least in the way that "God" is generally understood by Christians, could allow this to happen.

To me there is no logic that can explain how God loves mankind above all else, and he is powerful enough to erase Satan--and in fact he WILL erase Satan--but in the meantime he lets Satan cause pain and suffering for his beloved "children." The qualities that would allow this situation to exist stand in direct opposition to the qualities that we normally assign to "God"--and that we strive to emulate ourselves.

[kg_veteran]

This is a fascinating thread. There are so many parallel conversations going on, I figure I'll just dive in somewhere...

I think it depends on what type of Christian you are - and, thus, how you interpret the Bible.

I am a Christian, and I voted for Kerry. In my opinion, most (but not all) of Kerry's stances were more aligned with my interpretation of the Bible. For example, I believe that banning two people who love each other from marrying is embarrassingly un-Christian.

We've had this argument at length before, Sturm. And hey, I agree with you. If two people who love each other want to get married, who are we to stop them? If I want to marry my brother, what right do you have to tell me that I can't? If you want to marry your mother, what right do I have to tell you that you can't?

When we follow your rationale to its logical conclusion, we realize WHY, as a society, we tell certain people they can't marry each other. Because it is socially and morally unacceptable. I know from prior discussions that you have no problem seeing why people would view marrying a sibling or parent (or minor) as being immoral, yet you can't fathom why people would view marrying a member of the same sex as being immoral. You also have no problem seeing why society would view a marriage involving more than two people (polygamy) as being immoral. That's odd to me. Why would society NOT have the right to draw the line on homosexual marriage just like it does on any other potential form of marriage?

As for your belief that opposing gay marriage is "un-Christian", I'd be curious to hear the basis for that belief. Both the Old and New Testament condemn homosexuality.

Tax breaks for the rich and advocacy of a latter-day version of trickle-down economics is, to me, embarrassingly un-Christian.

What's the basis for this belief?

It just depends, however, on how you read the Bible – and your personal brand of beliefs.

If you only believe part of the Bible to be authoritative in your life, where do you draw the line? If you take the Bible on an ad-hoc basis and read each verse or passage and then decide whether or not you think it should apply to you, who's in control? You, or God?


As for your argument that slavery is morally and divinely ordained by the Bible (and therefore, presumably, we should be able to pick and choose what we believe out of the Bible), I'm not sure how you take that from what Paul said in the scriptures that you quoted.

Jesus did not die for political causes or hot button issues or even for human rights. He died for you. He died for me. He died so that we could enter into a personal relationship with Him. And that's the whole point that so many people seem to miss. Being a Christian is not about being religious; it's about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus, Paul's perspective as he wrote the letter you refer to (and others where he makes similar statements) was that of how we should respond to the circumstances of life in light of that relationship with Jesus. Paul was lobbying for personal transformation, not social change. Thus, when he addresses the masters of slaves, Paul basically tells them not to treat their slaves like slaves, but rather to treat them with respect and dignity. Sure, I suppose Paul could have instructed all slave masters to free their slaves, but demanding that misunderstands the purpose and perspective of his letters.

[MavKikiNYC]

If two people who love each other want to get married, who are we to stop them?

Yes, who indeed?

B'WAY BIGOT DRAMA

By PHILIP MESSING, MICHAEL RIEDEL and HASANI GITTENS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 5, 2004 -- A letter-writing racist mailed a hate-filled death threat to actor Taye Diggs, threatening "burn" and "castrate" the African-American actor because of his interracial marriage to Broadway star Idina Menzel, police sources said.

In addition to the malicious missive sent to Diggs, the writer has also penned at least two noxious notes making "negative remarks" about Menzel and her marriage — and threatening to burn down the Gershwin Theatre, where she stars in the musical "Wicked."

The details of the Diggs threat, which was sent to Broadway honcho Jed Bernstein, were not released.

But a police source said the letter threatened the "How Stella Got Her Grove Back" star with "bodily harm," called him a "sellout," and, most disturbingly, declared that the sick sender "wanted to burn him and castrate him."

The source noted that each of the mailings had different postmarks: Ohio, Philadelphia and New York.

Sources said Bernstein, president of the League of American Theaters and Producers, received the evil epistle Wednesday.

The mailing was referred to the NYPD's Hate Crimes Task Force, police sources said.

"Wicked" sources confirmed Menzel and Diggs were the targets.

"Wicked" spokesman Bob Fennell would not confirm or deny the letter and said only:

"While we cannot comment on any particular situation. We take the security of everyone connected to the production very seriously. Security has been and will continue to be in place."

He wouldn't say if security had been beefed up.

Fans waiting for autographs after yesterday's matinee said security seemed tighter.

"We had our bags searched, that was the only unusual security thing that we noticed today," said Joshua Cleveland. "We've been to a couple of other musicals, and we've never seen that before."

The couple met while part of the original cast of the musical "Rent" in 1995. They were married in January 2003.

Diggs currently stars in "Kevin Hill," a UPN drama in which he plays a hot-shot lawyer whose lifestyle is changed when he has to take care of the 10-month-old daughter of a cousin who dies.

Menzel has starred as Elphaba, the wicked, or green, witch in the musical — based on characters from "The Wizard of Oz" — since it opened in October 2003.

Her spokeswoman, Cary Ross, said the couple was "well-protected" and "the theater's done a great job with security."

[kg_veteran]

Kiki, I may be dense, but I really don't see how that article relates to the discussion.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
Well capital.... I have a problem with what you said. I am not African American, so I don't know for sure that the situation you describe is indeed true. But even if it was, why would that force an African American voter to vote Democrat if that is not what they truly think is best for them? It's not like you get branded with a Republican seal if you vote Republican. It is very common for voters to not discuss the way they voted (and widely respected not to ask).

Dave Chappell has a bit about how much white people safeguard their personal voting record - but how that isn't necessarily the same case in the black community. Im not saying he's the spokesman for the entire race - but i do remember several news/ human interest stories during the past few months that carried out the same perception.

Theory:
John Doe Preacher of the predominantly black 1st baptist church focuses on subject A, B, C in his sunday morning sermon. The congregation nods in approval throughout the sermon, and when compelled by the spirit they speak aloud their approval - i.e. "Yes, Preacher", "Uuhhhh- Huhhhh.", "That's Right", "Yes Jesus", "Thank you Lord" etc.

The next Sunday John Kerry (or token white democrat) comes to speak to the congregation, the majority of whom he considers constituents. He gives a speech full of campaign rhetoric which touches on subject A, B, C. During the carefully thought out politicized speech the same congregation nods in approval and audibly agrees - "Thats right", "Uuhhhh-Huhhhh", "Help us Lord"

Now this doesn't have to be at Church. It could be at a Town Hall meeting in the inner city, at the local Union Hall, at the local traditional soul food eatery. If all these places, or events, foster or encourage a certain line of thinking or emotional response - (yes they might also be forums for open debate but then it wouldn't be hard to hide the fact that you did not agree or conform to the same thoughts.

U2 - I think that specific groups who spend consideralbe amounts of time in each others company know those other persons business. Where by 90% of a group will find, and 'out', the 10%. The 10% may not wear their politics on their sleave - but if the other 90% are open and vocal about their political views then it isn't hard to see who's not on-board with the same rationale.

[sturm und drang]

Kiki, without quoting your long response:

You ask what my belief is rooted in. I believe very strongly that homosexuals are born that way - that there is absolutely no choice involved as to their orientation. And as my Sunday school teacher once told me long ago, God don't make mistakes. I believe that, too. I don't see why God, in his infinite wisdom, would make one out of 10 of his children innately defective, innately sinful.

In all his teachings, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Not once. In the NT, Paul is the only person to speak of it. And as you can see from the Ephesians quote I used earlier, Paul's words (like many other throughout the Bible) have to be viewed in context of the culture in which they were made. Just as most all Christians would admit now, the "slave, obey thy master" dictum he set forth has to be... well, what do you do with it? Do you toss it away? To you attempt to justify it?

You justify Paul's advocacy - nay, enforcement - of slavery thusly:

"Paul's perspective as he wrote the letter you refer to (and others where he makes similar statements) was that of how we should respond to the circumstances of life in light of that relationship with Jesus. Paul was lobbying for personal transformation, not social change."

Interesting. If we can read Paul's dictum on slavery in such a forgiving, interpretory light - why not his mentions of homosexuality? Are we to read some of his statements in contemporary and personal context, but accept others as the infallible word of God? If so, how do we discern between the two?

And to your ridiculous extrapolation theory - "if we let them damned homos marry, wha's next? Polygamy? Parents marrying their kids? Animals? Dead people?" - I ask you to turn it the other way. If we now exclude certain people from marrying, what's next? Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs? (Particularly Nuremburgian, that one...)

You ask me superciliously why I – simplistic, thick-skulled imbicile that I no doubt am – can't see that slippery slope, why I can't see that including homosexuals in marriage wouldn't inevitably lead to polygamy, pedophaelia. Now I ask you why you can't see how excluding homosexuals couldn't engender equally nefarious ramifications. In a country where interracial marriage is a novel concept and still much-detested in some circles (per your article), which extrapolation theory is more likely? If I can make the case that's it acceptable to exclude certain people from marrying, then why isn't it acceptable to bar others?

I simply don't buy your extrapolation theory. I also don't believe that clinging to social mores because "that's the way it's always been" is a viable way to gauge and weigh such issues. If we all lived by this, would slavery still be present? Would Hammurabi's sense of justice prevail? Would women be second-class citizens?

[u2sarajevo]

And to your ridiculous extrapolation theory - "if we let them damned homos marry, wha's next? Polygamy? Parents marrying their kids? Animals? Dead people?" - I ask you to turn it the other way. If we now exclude certain people from marrying, what's next? Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs? (Particularly Nuremburgian, that one...)

That is a ridiculous argument. Same sex marriages are already "excluded", has been for years and nothing like you suggested has been proposed. Nor would it. I think you know that, you seem smart enough to figure that out.

[sturm und drang]

U2 wrote:

"That is a ridiculous argument. Same sex marriages are already "excluded", has been for years and nothing like you suggested has been proposed. Nor would it. I think you know that, you seem smart enough to figure that out."

So you're telling me it's "ridiculous" to imagine that actively and explicitly banning same-sex marriages – an issue which just recently arose on a federal level, and is now being weighed individually by many states – could lead to a slippery slope of other exclusionary practices? That that scenario is somehow more "ridiculous" than matter-of-factly stating that allowing consenting same-sex adults to marry could lead to polygamy, bestiality and incest?

You gave me too much credit, U2. I'm not smart enough, I guess, to figure THAT logic out.

[Nash13]

I guess thats my point - I (as a white person) couldn't question the legitimacy, insult, or deride the statements of Sharpton or Jackson because some will insinuate my comments are, in part, racially motivated.Even in taking that stance are you percieved as a sellout for not supporting those who are perhaps unethical and immoral but nonetheless fighting for the rights of the discriminated and disinfranchised?

I cannot (and do not) use the word "Uncle Tom". That word, just like the N-word, is 'owned' by the black race.

My question to you is - Are Sharpton and Jackson unassailable figures in your community? Or can they, or their opinions, or their political leanings be called into question without the (black) individual being percieved as a traitor.

If the answer is in whole or in part yes, then that is why I feel 90% of the black community votes democrat. Because voting republican is the hard thing to do, and why obstacize yourself in black circles over politics. Voting republican is seen not as a choice of politics but a choice of "the team" you're on.

For both Xerxes and Capital, 90% of MINORITIES voted for Kerry, not just blacks.

Capital, i'm sure a lot of blacks use Jackson and Sharpton as a credible reference, but i do not, not because i think they are sellouts, but because they are supposedly men of the cloth but go against God's word. I never judge people by the color of their skin no matter white or black. As a matter of fact, i don't believe in the word, sellout or traitor because i date interracially and hang with a lot of white people, and i'm not selling out. That would lead to thinking in stereotypes, which i don't do.

Because I think they have been attacked and overwhelmed with a 'gospel of fear' for years...they have bought the lies and complained about their lives, yet clung tightly to the welfare lines...it's a vicious cycle. People complain about the welfare system, well guess what, that's a Democratic program installed by Dems- it's failure has nothing to do with Republicans...

Welfare is not the most common problem amongst blacks, however, it's an issue. And i don't agree with your assessment of Democrats. 3 of our last 4 presidents have been republicans. So it's debateable(if i spelled that right) who's the source of Black oppressions.

Also some nasty things have happened to blacks while republicans were in office dating back to the early 90s.

And i'll repeat what i said earlier, my race IS NOT the only reason i voted for Kerry.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
U2 wrote:

"That is a ridiculous argument. Same sex marriages are already "excluded", has been for years and nothing like you suggested has been proposed. Nor would it. I think you know that, you seem smart enough to figure that out."

So you're telling me it's "ridiculous" to imagine that actively and explicitly banning same-sex marriages – an issue which just recently arose on a federal level, and is now being weighed individually by many states – could lead to a slippery slope of other exclusionary practices? That that scenario is somehow more "ridiculous" than matter-of-factly stating that allowing consenting same-sex adults to marry could lead to polygamy, bestiality and incest?

You gave me too much credit, U2. I'm not smart enough, I guess, to figure THAT logic out.

That is exactly opposite of what you said though. You stated:

And to your ridiculous extrapolation theory - "if we let them damned homos marry, wha's next? Polygamy? Parents marrying their kids? Animals? Dead people?" - I ask you to turn it the other way. If we now exclude certain people from marrying, what's next? Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs? (Particularly Nuremburgian, that one...)

You made a large assumption that if same-sex marriages were allowed it would lead to "Polygamy, parents marrying kids, animals, dead people", something that is not logical at all. You then said to turn that around, if we disallow same-sex marriages (something that has been in place forever in most states) next would come "Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs?".

That is making large, illogical assumptions.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Kiki, without quoting your long response:

I think you meant kg, but I digress...

You ask what my belief is rooted in. I believe very strongly that homosexuals are born that way - that there is absolutely no choice involved as to their orientation. And as my Sunday school teacher once told me long ago, God don't make mistakes. I believe that, too. I don't see why God, in his infinite wisdom, would make one out of 10 of his children innately defective, innately sinful.

Two points here. First, we are all born innately sinful. We are born with a "sin nature". Thus, we all have a predisposition, if you will, to sin. That doesn't mean we don't have a choice of whether or not to sin.

Second, your rationale begs the question of whether people are "born gay". IF God created people with an attraction to the same sex and then declared that to be a sin, that would seem cruel. However, the Bible suggests just the opposite. A couple of examples:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." - Genesis 2:24

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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." - Romans 1:26-27

I challenge you to cite to one instance in the Bible that suggests that people are born or created gay.

In all his teachings, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Not once.

He did, however, address marriage:

"3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9

These comments from Jesus make it clear that God created marriage as a union of a man and a woman, not of man and man or woman and woman.

Jesus also spoke out against adultery and sexual immorality. Jesus may not have used the word "homosexuality," but his position was (and is) clear.

In the NT, Paul is the only person to speak of it. And as you can see from the Ephesians quote I used earlier, Paul's words (like many other throughout the Bible) have to be viewed in context of the culture in which they were made. Just as most all Christians would admit now, the "slave, obey thy master" dictum he set forth has to be... well, what do you do with it? Do you toss it away? To you attempt to justify it?

You justify Paul's advocacy - nay, enforcement - of slavery thusly:

"Paul's perspective as he wrote the letter you refer to (and others where he makes similar statements) was that of how we should respond to the circumstances of life in light of that relationship with Jesus. Paul was lobbying for personal transformation, not social change."

Interesting. If we can read Paul's dictum on slavery in such a forgiving, interpretory light - why not his mentions of homosexuality? Are we to read some of his statements in contemporary and personal context, but accept others as the infallible word of God? If so, how do we discern between the two?

Paul isn't advocating or enforcing slavery; he's advocating how the slave should respond to his master and how the master should treat the slave. He's essentially saying that they shouldn't be treated like slaves. I'm not interpreting anything; I'm just reiterating what he said. Jesus didn't condemn slavery either, but he condemned many other human practices. That doesn't mean that Jesus approved of or sanctioned slavery. It just indicates exactly what I'm saying: Jesus was looking to effect transformation of lives on a personal level, not political or social change.

Also, how can you interpret what Paul says about homosexuality to mean anything other than what he said? You can't. You have to IGNORE what he said.

And to your ridiculous extrapolation theory - "if we let them damned homos marry, wha's next? Polygamy? Parents marrying their kids? Animals? Dead people?" - I ask you to turn it the other way. If we now exclude certain people from marrying, what's next? Whites can't marry blacks? Christians can't marry Muslims? The healthy can't marry those with special needs? (Particularly Nuremburgian, that one...)

I never said that one thing would lead to another. I said that society chooses to draw the line in all of those other examples (on moral grounds, no less), and you have no problem with it. Yet, when society draws the line on homosexual marriage you do have a problem with it. That is illogical.

As for your examples, they really don't hold water since society ALLOWS all of those types of marriages.

You ask me superciliously why I – simplistic, thick-skulled imbicile that I no doubt am – can't see that slippery slope, why I can't see that including homosexuals in marriage wouldn't inevitably lead to polygamy, pedophaelia.

Again, that's not what I asked you. I asked you why you had a problem with society drawing the line on a form of marriage that you favor while not having a problem with society drawing a line on forms of marriage that you are against.

Also, I had to look up supercilious, but I wasn't patronizing you or being haughty. I'm surprised you would accuse me of that.

[Smiles]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
U2 wrote:

"That is a ridiculous argument. Same sex marriages are already "excluded", has been for years and nothing like you suggested has been proposed. Nor would it. I think you know that, you seem smart enough to figure that out."

So you're telling me it's "ridiculous" to imagine that actively and explicitly banning same-sex marriages – an issue which just recently arose on a federal level, and is now being weighed individually by many states – could lead to a slippery slope of other exclusionary practices? That that scenario is somehow more "ridiculous" than matter-of-factly stating that allowing consenting same-sex adults to marry could lead to polygamy, bestiality and incest?

You gave me too much credit, U2. I'm not smart enough, I guess, to figure THAT logic out.

Sturm, I sure appreciate that you don't hesitate to speak up. Just reading this thread exhausts me emotionally. True, the slippery slope could go either way. That's just the nature of the system. Biblically, Christians are not permitted to marry non-Christians. Therefore, if the far left right were to gain a huge amount of power over time.... it's not too far fetched to imagine that they might try to make this "biblical law" legislation. Why not? The slippery slope argument has been the primary reason why I still struggled over this issue. If nothing else, at least know that your statements and logic have reached me and made a big difference in my soul searching over this issue.

To the others:
Yes, Paul was whole-heartedly telling slaves to obey their masters - clearly endorsing the practice of slavery (which was moral according to the cultural contex it was written in). I have a bit less respect for some of your stances because of the rediculous responses some of you gave to this particular point. I also know that it is the only way you know how to rationalize your beliefs, and I can respect you as individuals who are trying to stand firm in your convictions.

I know what the Bible says about homosexuality. I know what it says about slavery. I think that the scriptures were "valid" within the cultural context they were written in.

Just out of curiosity, are there any scriptures where God himself was quoted opposing homosexuality? Who was quoting him? I'm still listening because I want to know the truth.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang

That is exactly my point, Mavsman. You just took a passage from the Bible and drew an analogy between yesterday and today – you are interpreting it figuratively, not literally. If you took the whole thing literally, as you claim to do, you would necessarily have to believe that slavery (the real kind - not the figurative slavery you mention) is moral and divinely-ordained.

We all read the Bible figuratively and interpret in different ways. Yours and mine just happen to be quite different...

I can understand/agree with you here.

I'm not so sure this verse is endorsing slavery (or work), as much as requesting that slaves be obedient to their masters. A main point stressed over and over again in the bible is diligence, and if one can endure being ordered around with diligence, then they can most likely endure any of the stresses/trials they encounter throughout their lives. But hey, that's my interpretation. And I appreciate what you have to say. Just please explain to me how you interpret 1 Timothy 1:8-10 as anything other than what it sounds like. Thanks for being civil.

[XERXES]

Q. What explicitly does the Bible teach about homosexuality?

This question I consider to be basic because, if we accept God's Word on the subject of homosexuality, we benefit from His adequate answer to this problem. I am concerned only with the Christian or biblical view of homosexuality. The Bible has much to say about sex sins in general.

First, there is adultery. Adultery in the natural sense is sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than his or her own spouse. It is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments (Exodus 20:14; I Cor. 6:9, 10). Christ forbids dwelling upon the thoughts, the free play of one's imagination that leads to adultery (Matthew 5:28).

Second, there is fornication, the illicit sex acts of unmarried persons which is likewise forbidden (I Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; Ephesians 5:3).

Then there is homosexuality which likewise is condemned in Scripture. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.

In the Bible sodomy is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known. Let us look at the passages in question:

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house around, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8)

The Hebrew word for "know" in verse 5 is ya„da`, a sexual term. It is used frequently to denote sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; Matthew 1:24, 25). The message in the context of Genesis 19 is clear. Lot pled with the men to "do not so wickedly." Homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life.

Lehman Strauss

Lehman Strauss is the OT professor at the Philadelphia Bible Institute. If you have other questions on how the Bible deals with homosexuality please click on the link and read the article. You will be educated...and Smiles, the answer to your question is yes - definitely. Scroll down and you can read where God speaks directly about the issue.

S&D- please open your mind and click on the article.

[XERXES]

The dreaded and feared double post...

[sike]

let me just say, this is the best overall thread I think I've ever come across in over a year at this little forum.

Never before have I read so many well thought out responces, and polite yet differing opinions. I've read every single post in this thread...sheer greatness. Dallas-Mavs.com members you are to be congratulated for your depth, insight, and conversational acumen on such a difficult and delicate issue.

I have so much I'd like to say in responce because for once the political forum has danced into my arena of profession, but its 2:25 in the morning and all I see are blue lights, so I'll get some sleep and wait till later in the day [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[sike]

whats with all the douple posts as of late?

[Lvubun1]

Lying and stealing where in the 10 commandments. Where is homosexuality?
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. In fact, bible languages of Hebrew and Greek have no word for homosexual.

The word “homosexual” is made up of Greek homo, meaning “the same,” and Latin sexualis, from which the English word “sex” is derived. The word “homosexual” has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years. According to the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), “homosexual” as an adjective was first used in 1892 and as a noun in 1902, and “homophobia” was first used in 1969 and “homophobe” first used in 1975. The translation of any Bible word as “homosexual” is a mistake.

Leviticus 18:22:
“You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an
abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. Even if you believe the Bible says homosexuality is a "abomination" The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an “abomination.” Leviticus 20:25 demands that “you are to make a distinction the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.” You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don’t know about them?

Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest” on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period.
Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing “a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together.” Leviticus 19:27 demands that “you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard.” The next verse forbids “tattoo marks on yourself.” Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

Why don’t fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are “abominations” in Leviticus. I'll bet my house everybody here has done something that the Bible says is a "abomination", show me where homosexuality is a bigger "abomination" the any of the above.

[XERXES]

I have so much I'd like to say in responce because for once the political forum has danced into my arena of profession, but its 2:25 in the morning and all I see are blue lights, so I'll get some sleep and wait till later in the day [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Are you professionally gay?




[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]

j/k I know what you do for a living you cutie you...

[XERXES]

Lvubun- your post is simply a collection of myths. To suggest that the Bible has no word for homosexuality is a laughable idea that has spread over the internet...

I'm posting a link to a story I read recently- written by the former pastor of a homosexual-leaning church...but it deals with several of the language misconceptions.

At one time in college my minor was ancient languages, I feel fairly well-versed in koine greek - but this guy explains it much better than I do...

and lvubun- you might want to think more critically about what you read online (in general) and find a way to validate for yourself.

what scripture says about homosexuality

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Smiles
To the others:
Yes, Paul was whole-heartedly telling slaves to obey their masters - clearly endorsing the practice of slavery (which was moral according to the cultural contex it was written in). I have a bit less respect for some of your stances because of the rediculous responses some of you gave to this particular point. I also know that it is the only way you know how to rationalize your beliefs, and I can respect you as individuals who are trying to stand firm in your convictions.

I suppose this is at least somewhat directed toward me, so I'll respond. I agree with you that an understanding of the cultural (or historical) context is necessary. At the time that Jesus and Paul lived, prosperity was tied to land, and the poor in an agrarian economy had to rely on indentured servitude to survive. Slavery was an economic fact of life. In that context, Paul was addressing how masters and slaves should treat one another. Although the Bible doesn't condemn slavery, history indicates that the Romans freed slaves in mass numbers. Most scholars attribute that to "applied Christianity".

Just out of curiosity, are there any scriptures where God himself was quoted opposing homosexuality? Who was quoting him? I'm still listening because I want to know the truth.

I'd refer you to the article that Xerxes posted. It addresses this pretty well.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: XERXES
Lvubun- your post is simply a collection of myths. To suggest that the Bible has no word for homosexuality is a laughable idea that has spread over the internet...

I'm posting a link to a story I read recently- written by the former pastor of a homosexual-leaning church...but it deals with several of the language misconceptions.

At one time in college my minor was ancient languages, I feel fairly well-versed in koine greek - but this guy explains it much better than I do...

and lvubun- you might want to think more critically about what you read online (in general) and find a way to validate for yourself.

what scripture says about homosexuality

Excellent article. Thanks for posting the link.

[u2sarajevo]

This article I found helpful when my wife and I were discussing this issue months ago.

[XERXES]

I'd really like to hear a rebuttal to one of these linked articles from some of our more left-leaning members of D-M (you know who you are- you scallywags...)[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

To answer Xerxes' question: after reading the Baptist perspective on homosexuality, I found a Unitarian minister's take on it - one that summarizes my interpretation of the issues at hand. It was in PDF format, so I have copied and pasted (and edited for clarity) below. Thoughts?

1. Leviticus 18, verse 22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

This prohibition is part of a lengthy and rigorous Holiness Code intended to keep the Jews culturally distinct from the Canaanites, whose land Jews believed God promised to them. “[Y]ou shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I am casting out before you,” the God of Leviticus commands. Jews were forbidden to sow their fields with two kinds of seed or to wear garments of two different materials. Round haircuts were banned, likewise tattoos, and consultation with mediums, and sexual relations during menstruation. These practices violated ritual purity and weakened the unique identity of the Jews. Many were punishable by death. The Holiness Code may have helped Jews survive on the hostile Canaanite frontier, but its time has long passed. If we damn homosexuality on the authority of Leviticus, we must do the same with Beatle haircuts, tattoos, and cotton-polyester shirts. Otherwise we’re not Biblical, we’re biased.

2. Sodom and Gomorrah, cities synonymous with wickedness.

Two angels sent by God stay the night in the house of Abraham’s nephew Lot. Men surround the house and call out the houseguests, “that we may know them.” Lot offers them instead his two daughters, that the men“may do to them as you please” but spare his guests. When the mob refuses this substitution, the angels strike them blind, and God rains sulfur and fire on the cities. “Sodomy” has come to mean any sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual, deemed unnatural or offensive. But the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah warranting annihilation are not named in Genesis. God decides to destroy the cities before the offense to his angels. Elsewhere, the Hebrew scriptures frequently refer to Sodom’s wickedness—its pride, its gluttony, its indifference to poverty—but not once to homosexuality.The crime of the Sodomite mob was attempted rape and violation of hospitality. In Jewish society, so sacrosanct was the safety of houseguests that Lot offered his own daughters to be raped rather than permit his guests to be violated. That the assault was by
men upon men rather than upon women was incidental. Their crime no more implicates homosexuality than King David’s sin of adultery implicates heterosexuality.

3. The first chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for
one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

But Paul was not writing about homosexuality. Homosexuality as we know it today did not exist in his society. There were no homosexual relationships, only homosexual acts committed by force, by rank, by ownership of slaves as property, or by lustful abandon that itself abandoned God. The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery. When he calls these acts “unnatural,” he ‘s not talking about immutable Natural Law, a theory not yet invented. He means uncommon, uncharacteristic of Greco-Roman society. When he condemns “degrading passions,” he’s talking about compulsions so powerful they deny God. He’s talking about emotional idolatry. As Paul puts in the
immediately preceding verse: “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” The sin is idolatry, not homosexuality. Paul had no idea—he had no basis for knowing—that people of the same gender could love each other and God, that they could bind themselves each to the other as faithfully, as devoutly, as tenderly as anyone.
He didn’t know that. But we do. To be faithful to Paul’s purpose, we must read his words in light of our knowledge.

4. Likewise Paul’s list in First Corinthians of “wrongdoers” who will not inherit the kingdom of God: “Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers.”

This and a similar list in First Timothy do not describe homosexuality. They are about sensualism, selfishness, and a willful turning away from God. Jesus never once mentions homosexuality. In all the Gospels, he says not one word about men having sex with men or women with women. If he thought it was important, he might have mentioned it. He never does. What does Jesus talk about? Well, he condemns divorce, but I don’t hear many politicians clamoring for a constitutional amendment to ban it. Jesus tells the rich to give their money to the poor. Today the rich get tax breaks while the poor get service cuts. Jesus drives the moneychangers from the temple. Today, big campaign contributors and their lobbyists have the run of Capitol Hill and Beacon Hill. Jesus talks about love, compassion, not judging people, welcoming to the table the shunned and the outcast. Jesus tells of a king who holds a wedding banquet for his son. When his friends spurn his invitation, the king sends his servants into the streets to bring in the poor, the blind, the lame, the bad and the good. All are welcomed. Asked to judge a woman caught in the act of adultery, Jesus tells the scribes and the Pharisees, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." “Judge not,” he says, “and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you.” Asked which is the greatest commandment, Jesus answers not one but two: “‘[Y]ou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all yourmind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

[kg_veteran]

A rebuttal...

DOES THE BIBLE APPROVE OF HOMOSEXUALITY?
by
A.P. Staff
link

It is becoming increasingly common to read and hear arguments made in defense of homosexuality. Usually no appeal is made to Scripture. However, on occasion, books and articles appear that attempt to address the biblical passages that discuss the subject. This article is a brief response to common claims about the Bible and homosexuality.

GENESIS 19:1-11
Some contend that Genesis 19 should not be used to argue against homosexuality since Sodom was destroyed, not for homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality and pride (see Matthew 10:14-15; Ezekiel 16:48-49). The argument is that the men of the city did not necessarily have any sexual perversion in mind, but just wanted to “know” Lot’s guests in the sense of interrogating them in a disrespectful fashion.

While it is true to say that Sodom was not destroyed merely because some of its citizens practiced homosexuality, it is false to say that Sodom was destroyed merely because its inhabitants were inhospitable and proud. The city was destroyed because its citizens were exceedingly sinful (Genesis 13:13). Ezekiel 16, which does mention their pride, also says they “committed abomination before” the Lord. Their actions at Lot’s doorstep reflected that sinfulness (Genesis 19:4-11). When the men of Sodom said they wanted to “know” the messengers of God, they obviously had sexual intentions in mind. This is clear from Lot’s unfortunate offer of his two daughters. Jude 7 reinforces this view as well: “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

LEVITICUS 20:13
Although Leviticus 20:13 enjoins the death penalty upon homosexuals, the passage is dismissed as irrelevant to the debate because it is part of a legal/holiness code that no longer is in force. It is no more binding than are the regulations against wearing different materials of cloth and planting different types of seed in the same ground.

It is true that the Mosaic legal/holiness code was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). However, to trivialize the code by placing all items in it on the same level is dubious. The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16ff.).

WHAT DID JESUS SAY?
It commonly is argued that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. As our guide and model for life, we should follow Jesus’ example of silence. He taught, instead, that we should love one another in a non-judgmental way.

In response, it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative (read Matthew 19:4-6 et al.).

1 CORINTHIANS 6 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1
Great strides are taken to prove that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 do not condemn homosexuality in general, but rather, abusive homosexual practices and male prostitution in particular.

Although the specific type of homosexual behavior mentioned in these two passages may be male prostitution and abusive homosexual practices, this does not in itself argue in favor of “loving, monogamous, homosexual” relationships. In fact, that concept is foreign to the New Testament. Both of these passages do condemn “fornication.” Fornication is a broad term that includes homosexuality. This is so for two reasons: (1) fornication refers to illicit sexual behavior; and (2) all sexual behavior that violates, is contrary to, or in addition to, the heterosexual behavior implied by a monogamous marriage, is illicit.

ROMANS 1:26-27
Clearly the most problematic passage for all who wish to say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:


For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Proponents of homosexuality have tried to remove the force of this passage by suggesting that either Paul was expressing his own uninspired opinion, or he was merely laying the groundwork for his teaching on grace. So he was mainly concerned with idolatry, and not any sin in particular.

Although a biblical writer’s opinion might indeed appear in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), the suggestion that Romans 1:26-27 represents Paul’s uninspired opinion and is at variance with the rest of the Scripture, is erroneous. If we cannot trust Paul to express the will of God on this point, where can we trust him? What will be our standard? Unfortunately, our own opinions become the standard all too often.

The fact is, Paul meant exactly what Christians have long thought he meant—that homosexual behavior is symptomatic of sin in the world. This passage is not to be dismissed as too difficult to understand, or as an isolated passage that somehow is outweighed by an impressive array of passages teaching the opposite. Although this passage does not stand alone, from the standpoint of divine inspiration, one reference is enough.

CONCLUSION
The conclusion is this: every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is condemned. The Bible is not homophobic (i.e., obsessively hostile toward homosexuality), but it clearly treats heterosexuality as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al.). These unsuccessful attempts to reinterpret the Bible’s teaching on the subject raise an even more crucial question: What Scripture can be presented that legitimizes homosexuality?

[XERXES]

I have to admit I have read only one line of your post before I am posting this, Sturm...I promise I am going to go back and ready the whole thing as soon as I hit the "reply" button below.

But, the fact that the first line mentions that this is the opinion of a Unitarian minister discredits the entire post. No, offense Sturm, but if we're going to have an in-depth discussion on homosexuality from a Christian perspective- why would we involve a Unitarian minister? I don't mean to sound elitist- I've got friends who attend the Unitarian Church...but I'm digressing...I guess it's kind of like wanting to speak to an authority on rap music- so you go ask the members of Quiet Riot...

I'm certainly not suggesting that the Baptist denomination is the end-all be-all...but a Unitarian's position on this is certainly comical...

Now I'm going to shut up and read the post...

[sturm und drang]

Whoa. Why in the world would a Unitarian minister's article be "comical?" Please explain to me why the Baptist point of view is any more relevant than the Unitarian? Are Baptists more "qualified" on this topic than other denominations?

And, by the way: this minister's perspective is almost identical to mine, my minister and that of my church (not entire denomination, but actual church community), and I'm Presbyterian. Does that make it any less "comical?"

[Murphy3]

Much the same way I dislike many universities lessening some of their standards to include certain segments of the population, I dislike when any religion bends their beliefs just to keep from being confrontational. Why is it ok for a church to pervade what is and is not sin just to be inclusive? Just because the world is more acceptable of certain immoralities does not mean that the church should adjust their basic beliefs along with the rest of the world. That's insane.

I am in no way attempting to come off as holier than thou or anything like that because I'm far from it. However, I have gone from numerous extremes in my life. I was within 5 months of becoming a minister at one point in my life for one of the most extreme Christian 'denominations' in the United States. Shortly after, I went to the near complete opposite end of the spectrum. At times, I have been an individual full of sin and immorality. However, I will not stand here and try to justify my sins and immorality just to make myself feel better. Even when I hit a low point in my life, I would have found it comical for a CHURCH to justify my immorality just to make sure that I felt included. Ultimately, that is what this argument is all about. It's about a segment of the population wanting to justify their immorality and the Churche that have no problem with it. Unfortunately, many 'churches' are more than willing to bend their beliefs to fit certain immoralities. What does this say about the churches? It's unbelievable.

[sturm und drang]

"It's about a segment of the population wanting to justify their immorality. Unfortunately, many 'churches' are more than willing to bend their beliefs to fit certain immoralities. What does this say about the churches? It's unbelievable."

Well, Murph, I am relieved that you've cleared that up for us. Now I'll have to run off and tell all my immoral, whoring gay friends that Murphy, in his infinite and merciful wisdom, has deemed them immoral. They'll just be crushed! Devastated, I tell you!







(God, protect me from your followers...)

[kg_veteran]

Sturm - Your whole argument is that the Bible either doesn't really mean what it says or that we should just ignore what it says. You have yet to point to a single instance where the Bible approves of homosexuality or homosexual marriage in any way. Moreover, you have ignored the fact that Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and that he condemned sex outside of marriage.

[Murphy3]

I'm sorry that you have decided to take such a cynical stance towards my post. If my post on churches justifying sin is offensive to you, then I hope you can forgive me. However, regardless of whether or not I decide to practice Christianity or any other religion, I cannot see anything in any of your posts that justifies any church molding the Bible around their needs instead of molding the church around the Bible.

I never mentioned the word 'whoring' while speaking about any of your gay friends. I would not do that around my gay friends either. I have no followers. I never said that I had followers. It's unfortunate that you would choose to discuss this in such a manner.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Whoa. Why in the world would a Unitarian minister's article be "comical?" Please explain to me why the Baptist point of view is any more relevant than the Unitarian? Are Baptists more "qualified" on this topic than other denominations?

And, by the way: this minister's perspective is almost identical to mine, my minister and that of my church (not entire denomination, but actual church community), and I'm Presbyterian. Does that make it any less "comical?"

I'm just saying that most Evangelical Christians disagree almost thoroughly and completely with the Unitarian Doctrine. I mean really, how is a sect that is all-encompassing, supposed to be uniquely Christian? Sturm, again, to suggest that the Unitarian point of view is an appropriate representative of the Christian faith is absurd...COMPLETELY absurd...

[sturm und drang]

My whole point - the one I have been making since the onset of this thread - is that the Bible is a document we ALL interpret. It was a response to Mavsman's comment that the Bible isn't open to interpretation. I say it is. We "interpret" the word of Paul in the NT when it comes to his support of slavery. We "interpret" that the Levitican dietary laws, which we ignore, are somehow different than the laws on homosexuality, which many uphold.

We all read the Bible and live it figuratively, not literally. Some interpret more than others. Some interpret it differently from others. That does not make it wrong...

[XERXES]

That being said - there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret something...and when you're dealing with something as significant as the Bible - I'd sure try to get my interpretation right.

[sike]

Whoa. Why in the world would a Unitarian minister's article be "comical?"

Well, their denials of the virgin birth, the resurrection, the atonement, the Trinity, and belief in universalism make them heretics of orthodox Christianity and plainly un-Christian. As an old professor used to say, “They are something….just not Christian.”

They simply call themselves “Christian” because they believe in the moralistic teachings of the “good teacher” Jesus of Nazareth. They find nothing uniquely special about the path or person of Christ per se, to a Unitarian one is just as likely to find God in Astrology, Nature worship, Ancestral worship, the Greek Pantheon, Wicca, or by banging two sticks together and claiming to talk to God. And even if you don’t believe in god/gods/God, it does not really matter because we all end up in Heaven together anyway.

This is what is wrong with using a Unitarian minister (who by his denominational association denies the inspiration of Scripture) to make a Christian argument.

I could murder black men and call myself a Christian (KKK) but that does not make me one. If we are to give Orthodox credence to the Bible at all we must agree that is does mean something when it speaks. And if it does mean something, that leaves us with the conclusion that all who agree with what it truly means are correct and all who apply false interpretations are incorrect. For example: lets say that kg and I have very different views/interpretations on a certain passage of Scripture, the fact that we happen to have different interpretations that we both believe we can argue does not make us both correct. If Scripture does mean something when it speaks, then it does not support two contradicting views. Someone’s interpretation may be correct but not both. If one of us is correct, the other is wrong. The Bible is not arbitrary when it speaks.



For the record and without malice of any kind I choose to understand Scripture to plainly regard sexual actions of any and all kind as sin unless they occur within the covenant relationship we know as marriage…which we only understand, according to the Bible, as being between a man and a woman.

I wish I had more time to address other topics…maybe later.