How can you dismiss one thing from the Old Testament but adhere to another? The (concrete) proscriptions against homosexuality are all Old Testament...

It's dangerous for Christians to claim "oh well...that's OT" when something doesn't fit.

No, God did not condemn polygamy, nor did he encourage it. He set forth to change cultures at their own speed. He does not (for the most part) magically fix things he doesn't approve of! He allows for growth.

Plus, God will use the very worst of us to be effective in his kingdom. How awful would it be if we had to be perfect before he would put us to work? Nothing would get done!

Polygamy is cultural.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phasad1913
Indirectly, perhaps, through the common religious ideology of the men who came together and signed
the Declaration of Independence in terms of what they believed and how they were raised, but NOT officially. Official correlation between Christianity and the affairs of the governance of the citizenry is precisely what they emancipated themselves from the British for.[Quote]

Oh true!! I agree with you. I guess what I meant was we as a country are based on Christian ideals, but not specifically one religious affiliation, i.e., Baptist, Catholic or Lutheran. All of these and a few more are still based on the Bible, i.e., Christianity.

I don't have any numbers, but I would guess that most Americans identify with some Christian religion as oppposed to Hinduism, Bhuddism, or even Muslim, although these religions are becoming more common in the US.

Yes, but as I understood Prop 2, it is about recognizing what a married couple is. Sure, a gay couple can get married by a judge, but the state of Texas does not have to recognize that marriage certificate eventhough the ceremony was performed by a judge.

Gay marriages may not hurt heterosexual marriages that much, but I think it boils down to what will society accept. With a 73% vote for Prop 2 in Texas, it would seem Texans are not ready to accept married gay couples in Texas society.

This is why, even though much of the way we live in America is very segregated and we all know that a lot of that has to do with continuing and persistent prejudice and racism, the government is not going to go into the homes, schools, churches, etc. of every person and force them to integrate their lives with someone of a different color. Those individuals who wish to isolate themselves in a way that they interact with people of their own "kind" have the private right of autonomy to do so, withoutht he threat of the government coming in, even though the government has made it clear the objectives it has and thinks the nation should have in ridding the society of that kind of seperatism.[/Quote]

But the government does have incentives to 'force' people together - usually through federal funding. No, they can not come into your home, but the feds do come into schools and some businesses via the 'dirty words' Affirmative Action.

Quote:

It can't force people to give in to so-called "moral " standards. All it can do, and all its supposed to do is refrain from imposing oppressive actions itself, which is what it should have done in this case.

But it can, through voting. If majority of the people want to set some standard, they just encourage their city, state, and/or congress representative to vote on some measure to do so. That is why we have ratings for TV, movies and song lyrics. There has been a moral 'line' established that says something like people 17 and under can not watch or hear certain acts unless authorized by a parent. People who are younger than 21 can not legally purchase alcohol, and that all porn mags should be behind the counter wrapped in brown paper.

Government is not some abstract concept. Government in this country is representative of the people and if the people 'want' something they take action through government. Again, like I said, voting is important.

wow, your a dick. I was just stating this case in specific as amusing and absurd



Im kind of waiting for someone to make masterbation illegal... i wouldnt put it pass it being brought up in the past.

There are things that were set in the Old Testament that stand still today. There are other things that were set forth in the Old Testament that Christ himself turned around in the New Testament. In the New Testament it says to be the husband of ONE wife.

jeni, you're right, except where it is clearly reversed.......like the sacrafices, and eating certain things, and even salvation.

I don't want to get into an argument with you at all - just prefacing that this is not my intention. I do want to set the record straight though.

Where the New Testament talks about one wife to a husband, it's talking about those in church leadership. What this means for Christians is that the best form of marriage is monogamy which is why it is a requirement for those in church leadership. It is highly recommended. BUT, God will use even polygamous (is that a word?) relationships to his glory. All of this is NOT to say that polygamy is accepted or condoned by God. It is to say that in his vast mercy, he does not strike us down for our iniquities.

Sidebar: The argument you're using to condemn polygamy is much like the argument used to condone slavery. Be careful about how you're reading the Bible! /sidebar

As far as the other things you mentioned (sacrifices, eating certain things, salvation) it wasn't so much that it was "reversed" but that these things were brought to the place God had intended from the beginning in Christ.

Most of these things were never wrong and they still aren't, in fact, they WERE a requirement - but Christ took their necessity upon himself. As for salvation in the Christian sense (as opposed to achieving holiness in the Jewish sense - and this is extremely simplified for the purposes of a relatively short post on GC), too many Christians make the jump from OT and NT ideas of being right with God. It was a progression from OT to NT...not a jump that made the OT understandings wrong.

Now that Christ has fulfilled the requirements for holiness (from the OT), it is he who makes us holy. But there were people in OT times who were ALSO holy!!

Don't ask, don't tell........:cool:

Hey, I am not ashamed ;)

So I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus condemns homosexuality... cause as far as I know he didn't - in fact didn't he heal a Centurion's boy slave/lover? (Mat 8:5-13) - yes the language is rather ambigious, like why was the Greek for bonded slave used "duolos" and instead use the term "pais"?

Jesus' message was one of forgiveness and reconciliation but ALWAYS with the charge to turn toward God and away from sin. It is not the least bit surprising that you do not find Jesus directly addressing the issue of homosexuality. We have to recognize the culture in which it was written! Sexual immorality was absolutely forbidden and punishable by death -- this would include adultery, rape, homosexuality, etc.

Look at what Jesus did with the adulterous woman. He did not condemn her, but forgave her, sending her away with the command not to sin anymore.

To say that Jesus didn't mention homosexuality is not a reasonable argument for his acceptance of it.

ETA: I think it's safe to say that Jesus ONLY condoned sexual activity between a married man and woman.

this talk is all good and fun, but I still wonder:

WHAT DOES JESUS HAVE TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUAL MARIAGES RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT THAT IS SEPERATED FROM THE CHURCH?

To say this government was founded on Christian values is not a good argument, because it doesnt mean the Christian decision is right.

Actually I think this is an important point, one that I think is pertinent to the whole discussion.

Yes sexual imorality was outlawed by the religious authorities, but not the secular authorities. So while adaultery, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, and even masturbation was condemned and punished by the religious authorities - the case was not the same with the secular authorities. This may be mainly because the secular laws of the Greeks, Hebrews, Phoenicians or Romans recognized that a difference in cultures and practices of the various peoples of the Roman Palestine province... so if Jesus himself lived in and understood a difference between secular and religious authorities (some that he clashed with) and legal practices.

Especially since many of the founding fathers were Deists.