California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

In Leviticus, it clearly states that 'man shall not lie with man as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination'....so what's your point?

If you want to go back and quote Leviticus, then gay marriages are an abomination.

Maybe you should quote all of Leviticus lest you become a hypocrite.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

Maybe you should quote all of Leviticus lest you become a hypocrite.

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

No, they ALL apply, and THAT is the problem. But you'll only spout off that one.

Leviticus tells you to do some pretty silly things but that won't stop YOU from ignoring those laws...now would it?

I believe that smacks of hypocrisy. Yes...yes it does.

Bible cherry picker, you.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

No, they ALL apply, and THAT is the problem. But you'll only spout off that one.

Leviticus tells you to do some pretty silly things but that won't stop YOU from ignoring those laws...now would it?

I believe that smacks of hypocrisy. Yes...yes it does.

Bible cherry picker, you.

*WE* are discussing one particular issue that is mentioned in *a* verse of Leviticus. What *you* are talking about, I have no idea....

Why mention other verses that are not related to the topic of this thread?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

*WE* are discussing one particular issue that is mentioned in *a* verse of Leviticus. What *you* are talking about, I have no idea....

Why mention other verses that are not related to the topic of this thread?

All the Bible is relevant. Or is it that one verse? Yes, for you it's that one verse.

Are you telling me you follow all the rules of Leviticus? If you tell us that, you are a liar. If you don't, you are a hypocrite.

Bible cherry picking does not behoove you.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

All the Bible is relevant. Or is it that one verse? Yes, for you it's that one verse.

Are you telling me you follow all the rules of Leviticus? If you tell us that, you are a liar. If you don't, you are a hypocrite.

Bible cherry picking does not behoove you.

Of course the whole Bible is relevant.

Since you seem to be new to GC let me 'school' you on a GC rule:

While in a thread, it is important to stay on topic.

Again, there are many other verses in Leviticus, and the entire Bible, but for the context of this thread only a particular verse applies.

Do you understand?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Of course the whole Bible is relevant.

Since you seem to be new to GC let me 'school' you on a GC rule:

While in a thread, it is important to stay on topic.

Again, there are many other verses in Leviticus, and the entire Bible, but for the context of this thread only a particular verse applies.

Do you understand?

This IS on topic. I'm trying to show that you quote the Bible but don't follow it yourself. You have NO credibility.

Don't quote the Bible if you can't abide by your own words. Don't tell other people what they can and can't do if you can't follow the rule book yourself.

Do YOU understand? I'm trying to figure out why the whole Bible is relevant but you conveniently ignore hundreds of passages on a daily basis, but pick out the gay passage as a law never to be broken.

That is a fair and legitmate question and quite frankly you owe this board an answer.

[doogur]

I've not had time to read the posts since last night and I'm heading off to class. I want to continue my debate with Nate (and Sigma for that matter)...tomorrow I shall return and discuss the New Testament and homosexuality.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do know that Leviticus is Jewish tradition. What Jews call their Torah, we as Chrisitans call the Old Testament.

No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.



No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Not all this again. Read all the posts in their entirety before you post.

Yeah, I don't know why she keeps bringing this up.

Actually she and I hashed it out via pm where we, I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I thought, finally agreed that we disagree.

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine. She has me on ignore.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by nate2512

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

I already know - she and I have a loooooooooonnnnggggg history here on GC. VERY LONG.

ETA: Kstar didn't see any of my posts so yours and his don't make a lot of sense without mine.

Ah! As much as some people on here rub me the wrong way, I've never put anyone on 'ignore'. It does interrupt the flow of the thread.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

don't try that with dstchaos, she doesn't like that too much

Yeah...why overstate the obvious? I'd rather someone say "this bores me, move on" if they want to be dismissive and have the power to begin and end discussions.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kstar

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

I've never heard anyone, except some Reform Jews, make a claim that any of the laws are "outdated." For 2000 years though, plenty of people have claimed that the ritual or purity laws -- dietary laws, clothing laws, laws regarding menstruation, and others that applied only to Jews and that separated Jew from Gentile -- are not binding on Christians. The beginnings of the discussion are actually documented in the Bible, you know -- Acts, chapters 10 and 15.

As for the ethical or moral laws -- such as laws prohibiting murder or stealing or regulating sexual beavior -- they have always been deemed to be universally binding, not just binding on Jews.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

And what you seem to be forgetting is that a large chunk of the Jewish and Christian communities, if not the majority of them, would not agree with your statement. While they would agree that men wrote the Scriptures, they would claim that those men were divinely inspired and did not insert personal prejudices.

Originally Posted by kstar

Actually no, it grants freedom OF AND FROM religion. You can practice any religion you want and you cannot have religion forced upon you.

Again, you ignore the parts of history that disagree with your worldview. The First Amendment only kept the federal government from making laws establishing a national religion. It was almost 100 years before the states were similarly prohibited by the Constitution. So whatever the First Amendment was intended to accomplish, it simply cannot be argued with any credibility at all that it was intended to protect people from religion. That's a late 20th Century spin on it.