quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) ~which is what most christian religions use~

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Note, it states nothing about homosexuality...

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.

now we get into the homosexuals.

another version

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (English Standard Version)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:(A) neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Your source. The problem comes in with interpretation. Anything can be added, changed or inserted to "clarify" meaning. That doesnt make it accurate.

Well, let me ask you two questions Tazzy.

First, why is your source more accurate? 

Second, what do you determine the meaning of what I highlighted to be?

Is it not just a different way of saying the same thing?

But if we really want to do this I can pull up Bible and Koran passages that condemn homosexuality all day long.

quote:


But if we really want to do this I can pull up Bible and Koran passages that condemn homosexuality all day long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Then your school was terribly misinformed about Christianity, as are you.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Sorry FirmhandKY

My question above wasn't aimed at you...it's an open question for whoever wants to answer it.

How do you edit posts in here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Old Testament is only a part of Jewish scripture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A part that was chosen for inclusion in the Christian bible by early Christians. If Leviticus didn't matter it would have been left out as was some or all of the books of Maccabee for instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
No, the old Testament doesn't count.

We are talking about Christianity, not Judaism.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The Old Testament is only a part of Jewish scripture.

True, but immaterial to the discussion about "homophobia" and Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A part that was chosen for inclusion in the Christian bible by early Christians. If Leviticus didn't matter it would have been left out as was some or all of the books of Maccabee for instance.

Like rml, and politesub, you are caught up in your own prejudice, hatreds and biases.

The differences between the impact of the Old Testament and the New Testament is easily discernible through just a bit of online research.  Just Google it.

Yet none of you seem the least bit interested in doing so.  I suspect the reason is that it would contradict your statements and beliefs, and therefore it is mentally easier to simply close your mind and call "Bullshit" than it is to find out that perhaps the facts do not support your thinking.

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, and of close-mindedness.

In other words, you and your cohort aren't any different - intellectually and morally - from members of such denominations as Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church: just on the other side of the equation.

You have your hatreds, and then seek your justifications for it.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: peacefulplace
Yes, there is supposed to be no denying what they say, but, as the NYTimes article pointed out, no mainstream religion in the U.S. uses that tired "children of Ham" story to justify slavery anymore, now, do they? It's a selective reading. Otherwise, you could also sell your daughter into slavery if you needed money, according to the Old Testament.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
No, the old Testament doesn't count.

We are talking about Christianity, not Judaism.

The ten commandments don't count?

Third, the Mosaic Covenant is no longer a functional covenant. The New Testament affirms the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has ceased to function as a valid covenant. Hebrews 8–9 makes it clear that Jesus came as the Mediator of a covenant that replaced the old one. "By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete" (Heb. 8:13). Thus the Mosaic Covenant is no longer functional or valid as a covenant. This has important implications for one’s understanding of the Law. The Old Testament Law specified the terms by which Israel could receive blessings in the land under the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. If the Old Covenant is no longer valid, how can the laws that make up that covenant still be valid? If the Old Covenant is obsolete, should not also the laws in that Old Covenant be seen as obsolete?

Paul stated repeatedly that Christians are not under the Old Testament Law. For example in Galatians 2:15–16 he wrote, "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." In Romans 7:4 Paul stated, "You also died to the law through the body of Christ." In Galatians 3:25 he declared, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Paul argued vigorously against Christians returning to the Old Testament Law. If there was a distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws, it was unusual that Paul ignored it. Furthermore, if the moral laws were to be understood as universally applicable, one would expect Paul at least to use them as the basis for Christian moral behavior. However, as Goldingay points out,Paul "does not generally base his moral teaching on this foundation but on the nature of the gospel, the guidance of the Spirit, and the practice of the churches."11

How, then, should Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 be understood? He said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Did Jesus and Paul contradict each other? Not at all. First, the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" refers to the entire Old Testament. So in this verse Jesus was not speaking of only the Mosaic Law. Also the antithesis is not between "abolish" and "observe," but between "abolish" and "fulfill." Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it. The word "" ("to fulfill") occurs numerous times in Matthew, and it normally means, "to bring to its intended meaning." Jesus was not stating that the Law is eternally binding on New Testament believers. If that were the case, Christians today would be required to keep the sacrificial and ceremonial laws as well as the moral ones, and that would clearly violate other portions of the New Testament.

Jesus was saying that He did not come to sweep away the righteous demands of the Law, but that He came to fulfill its righteous demands. As the climax of this aspect of salvation history, Jesus fulfilled all the righteous demands and all the prophetic foreshadowing of the Law and of the Prophets. In addition Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law and its meaning, as other passages in Mathew indicate. Jesus restated some of the Old Testament laws (19:18–19), but some He modified (5:31–32). Some He intensified (5:21–22, 27–28 ), and others He changed significantly (5:33–37, 38–42, 43–47). Some laws He abrogated entirely (Mark 7:15–19). Jesus was not advocating the continuation of the traditional Jewish approach of adherence to the Law. Nor was He advocating that the Law be dismissed altogether. He was proclaiming that the meaning of the Law must be interpreted in light of His coming and in light of the profound changes introduced by the New Covenant.12

Conclusion

The Law is tied to the Mosaic Covenant, which is integrally connected to Israel’s life in the land and the conditional promises of blessing related to their living obediently in the land. Christians are not related to that land, nor are they related to the conditions for being blessed in the land. Also the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete, having been replaced by the New Covenant. Therefore the Mosaic Law, a critical component of the Old Covenant, is not valid as law over believers in the church age.

Introduction

When Christians read the Old Testament, they are often puzzled. They find many laws that seem to be part of Christianity, and yet they also find many laws that no one obeys. Laws of sacrifice, rituals and civil laws are all mixed in together with laws that tell people how to get along with others.

How can a Christian know which laws to keep? Does the Bible tell us? This Bible study course explores this topic in detail. You will need to look up each of the scriptures you find listed, because we have not taken the space to quote them. But it is worth the time to learn about how we ought to obey our Creator and Savior. We'll begin with some general principles so that we lay a good foundation for discussing specific laws later in this study.

First, we will establish from Scripture that Christians are expected to obey God. Then we will look at God's laws — starting in the time before Moses, then a closer look at the covenant made at Mt. Sinai. We will see how Jesus, Paul and the early church deal with the difference between old and new, then explore that difference with a few examples of laws that almost all Christians agree are obsolete. We then apply those principles to the seven annual Sabbaths,  dietary laws, and the weekly Sabbath. We close by noting some of the commands the New Testament gives us, and end by emphasizing that, although Christians should obey God, our salvation is received on the basis of faith, not on the basis of our obedience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Again BULLSHIT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Unlike, apparently, you, I've actually read the entirety of all major holy books.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've also studied in depth the history of the many different collections of writings that are labeled as Christian Bibles. Strangely while many different parts of Jewish scripture is excluded Leviticus is always included.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Since Leviticus is nothing more than a recitation of a series of laws and rituals with no significant bearing on the flow of the story of the jewish exodus and conquest of Israel, it actually is more or less a disruption of that narrative, it would make a great deal of sense, if it had no bearing on Christians, to simply leave it out. Or to abridge it to only include the relevant sections. However that is never done. The entire book is present in every variation of the Bible I've ever seen.

Furthermore significant disagreement exists on whether or not it does or does not apply to Christians. Seventh Day Adventists are probably the best known Christian sect that attempts to follow the dietary restrictions laid out in chapter 11. The sexual rules under discussion here are frequently quoted by fundamentalist Christians as the basis for their opposition to homosexuality as well as other sexual mores and taboos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A simple google search on "homosexuality leviticus" will reveal that the subject is a matter of much debate and interpretation in the christian world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Leviticus.

Old Testament.

20 something from memory, along with a whole long list of others due the chop. Doesnt that count then or are you limiting things to suit your argument.

No, the old Testament doesn't count.

We are talking about Christianity, not Judaism.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Leviticus.

Old Testament.

20 something from memory, along with a whole long list of others due the chop. Doesnt that count then or are you limiting things to suit your argument.

No, the old Testament doesn't count.

We are talking about Christianity, not Judaism.

Firm

It does count, damn it.  I've consistently heard that exact verse used by fundamentalists to justify "hating the sin" (they usually follow that with "and loving the sinner", but I see very little separation between the sin and sinner as exhibited by the Christians using that quote).  Do you think Christians don't believe in the Ten Commandments?  The Genesis account of the creation of the world (which drives creationism)?  All the prophetic books?  The Psalms?  I was raised a Lutheran, and we learned about the Hebrew Bible in confirmation class, and quoted from it in services.  The "born again" group I was in during high school also spent a lot of time on the prophetic books.

IMHO, the fundamentalist approach is hypocritical to me, since they will say on one hand that the old covenant no longer applies, but still uphold the Ten Commandments, justified slavery based on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and drag out Levitican law against homosexuality.  Like I said, I have listened to broadcasts, seen online writings, and heard on the radio the Levitican verses used against homosexuality.

There have been a lot of cultures in the world that don't frankly give a shit about homosexuality  or give them a respected part in their society.  Some cultural anthropologists figure there's even an evolutionary advantage to small amounts of homosexuality; they can provide care to members in the group, or contribute food to the group without adding the additional children (which cost food resources).

Personally, I've often wondered why a community that constitutes 3% or less of the population is considered a huge threat to our country, society, marriage, etc. 

The Law of Moses

In Biblical times, the Law of Moses (also called Old Testament Law, Mosaic Law, or just The Law) regulated almost every aspect of Jewish life. The Ten Commandments and many other laws defined matters of morals, religious practice and government. It regulated the army, criminal justice, commerce, property rights, slavery, sexual relations, marriage and social interactions. It required circumcision for males, blood sacrifices, and Sabbath observance. It provided for the welfare of widows, orphans, the poor, foreigners and domestic animals. Ceremonial rules divided animals into "clean" and "unclean" categories. Clean animals could be eaten; unclean animals could not.

Teachings of Jesus

By the time of Jesus, the great moral principles God had given to Moses in the Ten Commandments had been turned into hundreds of ceremonial rules. People thought they were living holy lives if they just obeyed all those rules. But many people found enough "loopholes" to obey all the rules and still live wicked and greedy lives (Matthew 23:23-28).

Jesus said that was not at all what God had intended. Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:16-17). He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).

Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict Jewish rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14, Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6, Luke 6:1-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6, John 5:1-18).

In contrast to the "clean" and "unclean rules," Jesus said no food can defile a person. It is bad attitudes and actions that can make a person unholy (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23).

Council of Jerusalem

The first Christians came from among the Jews, and they continued to observe the Law of Moses as well as their new Christian faith. But as more and more Gentiles (non-Jews) converted to Christianity, there were disputes about whether or not these Gentile Christians must observe the Law. Issues of circumcision and diet were especially troublesome.

In about the year 49 A.D., Peter, Paul, Barnabas, James and other Christian leaders met in Jerusalem to settle the issue (Acts 15:1-29). It was agreed that no conditions should be imposed on the Gentile converts except faith in Christ. However, the council recommended that Gentile Christians abstain from certain things that were particularly offensive to their Jewish brethren - food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality (Acts 15:29).

The New Covenant

With the coming of Christ, God has established a new covenant with mankind (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:8-13, 9:11-15) that supersedes the Old Testament Law.

Jesus and His apostles gave us a radically new understanding of the true intent of the Old Testament Law; they brought a new era of the rule of love for all people and spiritual truth instead of rule by law (Luke 10:25-28, John 13:34-35, Ephesians 2:14-18).

Conclusion

The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc.

Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance (2 Timothy 3:16-17). But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, Galatians 2:15-20).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
But if we really want to do this I can pull up Bible and Koran passages that condemn homosexuality all day long.

Please do.

• Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
•  
  
• Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•  
• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•  
• Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen




Since Leviticus is nothing more than a recitation of a series of laws and rituals with no significant bearing on the flow of the story of the jewish exodus and conquest of Israel, it actually is more or less a disruption of that narrative, it would make a great deal of sense, if it had no bearing on Christians, to simply leave it out. Or to abridge it to only include the relevant sections. However that is never done. The entire book is present in every variation of the Bible I've ever seen.

Furthermore significant disagreement exists on whether or not it does or does not apply to Christians. Seventh Day Adventists are probably the best known Christian sect that attempts to follow the dietary restrictions laid out in chapter 11. The sexual rules under discussion here are frequently quoted by fundamentalist Christians as the basis for their opposition to homosexuality as well as other sexual mores and taboos.

A simple google search on "homosexuality leviticus" will reveal that the subject is a matter of much debate and interpretation in the christian world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: odysseyIndeed

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen




Since Leviticus is nothing more than a recitation of a series of laws and rituals with no significant bearing on the flow of the story of the jewish exodus and conquest of Israel, it actually is more or less a disruption of that narrative, it would make a great deal of sense, if it had no bearing on Christians, to simply leave it out. Or to abridge it to only include the relevant sections. However that is never done. The entire book is present in every variation of the Bible I've ever seen.

Furthermore significant disagreement exists on whether or not it does or does not apply to Christians. Seventh Day Adventists are probably the best known Christian sect that attempts to follow the dietary restrictions laid out in chapter 11. The sexual rules under discussion here are frequently quoted by fundamentalist Christians as the basis for their opposition to homosexuality as well as other sexual mores and taboos.

A simple google search on "homosexuality leviticus" will reveal that the subject is a matter of much debate and interpretation in the christian world.

It is relevant to Christians so that they can know about The Law that Jesus and Paul speak about in the New Testament. It has a bearing on Christianity because it shows what the Law was and the expectations before Christ died for our sins.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So in the end Firm's entire argument boils down to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

He defines christians in such a way to exclude all the self identified christians who disagree with him on this subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

~ FR ~

I pointed out in another thread that the definition of religion includes:

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

Which, of course, effectively defines as a "religion" virtually anything "a group of persons" wants to say is one. Similarly, if we are going to define as a "Christian" virtually anybody who says he is, then that word too is rendered devoid of meaning. And in truth, it largely is anyway. Christianity is not a monolithic entity. There are a multitude of Christian denominations, and they differ on just about everything imaginable.

Now, I am all for roundly criticizing those who lift passages out of context, ignoring their wider textual, theological, and historical context in order to justify whatever hateful bit of business they're on about. But to use that as a club to bash a religion as a whole, be it Christianity or Islam, seems to me to say more about the speaker than it does about anything else.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Like rml, and politesub, you are caught up in your own prejudice, hatreds and biases.

The differences between the impact of the Old Testament and the New Testament is easily discernible through just a bit of online research.  Just Google it.

Yet none of you seem the least bit interested in doing so.  I suspect the reason is that it would contradict your statements and beliefs, and therefore it is mentally easier to simply close your mind and call "Bullshit" than it is to find out that perhaps the facts do not support your thinking.

This is a classic case of confirmation bias, and of close-mindedness.

In other words, you and your cohort aren't any different - intellectually and morally - from members of such denominations as Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church: just on the other side of the equation.

You have your hatreds, and then seek your justifications for it.

Firm