California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Because their value represents the moral decline of nation.

Also, your signature is quite surprising, considering you a Christian supporting something the Bible most certainly denouncing and calls a sin. So I guess you disagree with the entire Bible, or just the parts that don't fit into your way of liberal thinking?

I wonder if you measure up to the same standard. Let's start with Leviticus, shall we?

Oh...this is going to be FUN!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by doogur

I wonder if you measure up to the same standard. Let's start with Leviticus, shall we?

Oh...this is going to be FUN!

Not really -- we've had that discussion on the ritual law and the ethical law before, not too long ago, in fact. The only fun is in seeing how some people attempt to make what they think are slam dunk arguments, like "do you observe every prohibition in Leviticus?" as though they discovered the Achilles Heel, when in fact they're just showing that they can proof-text without any reference to how one or two verses fit into the witness of the entire Bible.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

The New Testament doesn't deal with homosexuality explicity because it wasn't an issue that was publicly discussed during that period of Jewish history. It was clumped into all sexual misconduct, including pre-marital sex.

Hmmm, I think that's a bit of a stretch. The same-sex activities of various cultures, including the Greeks, were quite-well understood by Jews; they simply didn't condone them. Paul refers to the Greek practices.

If one wanted to argue that the Jews and those around them did not have an understanding of homosexuality as an orientation (that is, homosexual orientation vs. homosexual behavior), then there may be some solid ground from which to argue. But I don't think there's very much solid ground for saying that the NT doesn't mention homosexuality because it wasn't publicly discussed. Worrying about what was suitable for public discourse didn't usually seem to bother Jesus or Paul.

I think it's a bit dangerous to read too much into the fact that homosexuality/homosexual behavior is discussed so little in the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular. There simply can be no doubt that it was a big no-no in Jewish, and subsequently Christian, understanding. Is it more likely that Jesus didn't mention it because he didn't think it was a big deal (as some like doogur would say), or because it was pretty much a settled deal? Frankly, I think that latter is much more likely.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not really -- we've had that discussion on the ritual law and the ethical law before, not too long ago, in fact. The only fun is in seeing how some people attempt to make what they think are slam dunk arguments, like "do you observe every prohibition in Leviticus?" as though they discovered the Achilles Heel, when in fact they're just showing that they can proof-text without any reference to how one or two verses fit into the witness of the entire Bible.

It is an Achilles Heel because I'm not the one cherry picking. I'm reading the context of Leviticus as a whole, not pulling out a verse here or there.

Leviticus was ritual law of the Jews. So why pull *one* gay verse out and ignore the others? Why is one ritual worth a thousand anti gay words and dozens of other rituals totally ignored?

The primary reason is because it's really convenient and pretty much ignores the witness of the entire Bible.

So, in fact, my argument is a slam dunk.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by doogur

It is an Achilles Heel because I'm not the one cherry picking. I'm reading the context of Leviticus as a whole, not pulling out a verse here or there.

Leviticus was ritual law of the Jews. So why pull *one* gay verse out and ignore the others? Why is one ritual worth a thousand anti gay words and dozens of other rituals totally ignored?

The primary reason is because it's really convenient and pretty much ignores the witness of the entire Bible.

So, in fact, my argument is a slam dunk.

Hardly a slam dunk. Leviticus is ritual and ethical law. You say you're reading Levitivus as a whole, but you are not reading it in the context of the rest of Scripture, which for Christians, includes the New Testament.

And just so we're clear, I haven't cited Leviticus as the warrant for current Christian views toward homosexuality. I think reasonable arguments can be made that Scripture does not prohibit a monogomous, faithful same-sex relationship.

You, however, are not making that argument. You are instead creating a straw man and then patting yourself on the back for knocking it down. Sorry, no slam dunk.