pajarito

Ok, I’ll be specific. Review my paragraph concerning old Jewish law. I was talking about some of the ceremonial and civil laws of the time that you mentioned and that do not apply today. The “moral law” (i.e. 10 Commandments), even though it was written in Old Testament times, is still as valid today as it was then. And yes, I do skydive on the weekend but not on Sunday (usually). I go to church. However, I don’t consider skydiving “work.” Quoted from my NIV study bible: It is Christ’s intention that the spiritual requirement of God’s law be fulfilled in the lives of his followers (Romans 3:31; 8:4). The believer’s relation to the law of God involves the following: 1. The law that the believer is obliged to keep consists of the ethical and moral principles of the OT (7:12; 22:36 – 40; Romans 3:31; Galatians 5:14). These laws reveal the nature and will of God for all people and still apply today. OT laws that applied directly to the nation of Israel, such as the sacrificial, ceremonial, social or civil laws, are no longer binding (Hebrews 10:1-4; e.g., Leviticus 1:2-3; 24:10). 2. Believers must not view the law as a system of legal commandments by which to obtain merit for forgiveness and salvation (Galatians 2:16, 19). Rather, the law must be seen as a moral code for those who are already in a saved relationship with God and who, by obeying it, express the life of Christ within themselves (Romans 6:15-22). 3. Faith in Christ is the point of departure for the fulfilling of the law. Through faith in Christ, God becomes our Father (John 1:12). Therefore, our obedience as believers is done not only out of a relationship to God as sovereign Lawgiver, but also out of a relationship of children to their Father (Galatians 4:6). 4. Through faith in Christ, believers, by God’s grace (Romans 5:21) and the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:13; Galatians 3:5, 14), are given an inner compulsion and power to fulfill God’s law (Romans 16:25 – 26; Hebrews 10:16). We fulfill it by living according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4 – 14). The Spirit helps us put to death the misdeeds of the body and to fulfill God’s will (Romans 8:13). Thus, external conformity to God’s law must be accompanied by the inner transformation of our hearts and spirits. 5. Having been freed from sin’s power, and now being enslaved to God (Romans 6:18 – 22), believers follow the principle of “faith” by being “under Christ’s law” (1 Collosians 9:21). In so doing we fulfill “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) and are thus faithful to the requirement of the law (Romans 7:4; 8:4; Galatians 3:19). 6. Jesus emphatically taught that doing the will of his heavenly Father is an ongoing condition of entering the kingdom of heaven. You are somewhat correct! It all depends on if they act on their homosexual tendencies or not. It does not, however, mean that what the practicing homosexual is doing is then justified. It is still a sin against God. If a person who claims to be “saved” is continuing to sin against God, whatever the sin and not just homosexuality (openly or privately), then he/she should really examine themselves to determine if their decision to follow Christ was genuine or not. Whether they are truly “saved” or not. I did not say that you said that one was reliant on or that people of a certain race were more likely to be homosexual. That’s not what I said at all. What I said was that one of the tactics of the homosexual movement was to partner itself with the discrimination/equal rights struggle of women/race/ethnicity groups in order to more normalize their lifestyles. This is in an attempt to further their agenda. One of your previous quotes mentioned blacks and women in the same paragraph as homosexuals. Given your position on the subject, it sounds like you’ve bought into their strategy. It may not, in fact, be a choice in the way you feel but there is a choice in the way you act or respond to those feelings. Open this. I not only think their different but I think they aren’t legitimate by definition. Therefore, I’m not for giving the right and privileges “associated with heterosexual marriage” to any other form of union.

Tell me what you think of this. http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9504b.htm About half way down deals with "What did Jesus say?" Gotta go again. Be back later.

I don’t deny that people pick and choose what best suits them from the Bible. That does not make it right. Your reference to old Jewish law, however, was cancelled out by the New Covenant that I just described as a means for salvation. Righteousness now only comes by the grace of God through faith in his son, Jesus Christ. It is very clear. You’re jumbling things up again. You’re trying to compare the two in an effort to strengthen the case of the homosexual movement, and therefore, achieve some of the same goals. “We've learned this the hard way, and we look back in shame on our denial of rights to women and blacks. We will someday look back in shame on our denial of the same rights for gays.” By definition, marriage currently consists of one man and one woman. It is what it is. If homosexuals want to make up their own, I guess they’re free to do so but it’s not the same thing.

Sort of. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment – to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” Ephesians 1:7-10 That means that all the stuff that Billvon mentioned as being confusing about old Jewish law and that one could just pick and choose are all irrelevant and not binding. All one must do now, due to the new covenant, is to trust in Jesus. All else will fall into place (i.e. New Covenant)

I'll get back with you. Be back in an hour.

Billvon, do you actually read and digest the things I post before you respond to them? I described in detail the different types of moral, ceremonial, and civil Jewish law. I explained what would be globally applicable, what would be applicable only to the Nation of Israel, what would be applicable in ceremony, and what would not be applicable today due to the new covenant that was brought about with the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In your second paragraph, what has any of this that we’re talking about go to do with science or whether the Bible has scientific applicability? What’s in contradiction? I guess you’re in the boat with the sexual preference = ethnic/race origin theory. I’m not and don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.

Nobody said living a Christian life was easy. It would suck considerably if it was against God's wishes that men be attracted to women. However, he set it up that way.

Wow….quite a barrage. I seem to have the monopoly on the “A#%HOLE Poster” position for this thread. Anyway, this is in response to all. Did I mention that my Dad, Grandfather, and most of my Great Uncles on his side of the family are all alcoholics? I have a very addictive personality and I’m pretty sure there is a hereditary factor involved. Therefore, I am very conscious of how much alcohol I drink. I do drink, on occasion, but I choose not to in excess anymore because I admit there is a problem. If I am in Las Vegas without my wife, I am tempted by other women. I’ve never been to Las Vegas. It’s just a hypothetical example. I, however, choose to ignore my natural impulses of infidelity and be faithful to my wife. You’re right. I’m fairly sure that I was born with those male heterosexual tendencies. That in no way admonishes my responsibility concerning the ethics of what I act on. What? They don’t have these same “gay pride” rally/parade/block party/backyard bar-b-que demonstrations in San Francisco? I’ll bet they have more. He sounded like he knew what they were all about. It’s possible. I don’t know for sure. It didn’t matter to me concerning our friendship. In answer to your second statement, I think it is better, ideally, that he not sin and defile himself against God, in any context. That’s speaking ideally. I, in no way come close to that standard. Again, I do not consider myself more righteous than someone who is homosexual just because I consider what they’re doing a sin. I’ve got plenty of my own to deal with. Do I think it better that he hides it? Not necessarily. I think if he “acts” on it, however, then it is an abomination. Would I still like him otherwise? Yes. My friendship wasn’t based on his sexual preference. I’m not saying that homosexuals are going to hell. I’m saying that they are sinning against God with their behavior. They will only go to hell if they refuse to accept Jesus as lord and savior and repent of their sin. Just like the rest of us. I’m also not “giving them pitty” as you put it. I know about the Jewish laws of the Old Testament. Here again is what I posted before in case you didn’t read it: The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was specifically that of the nation of Israel. I misstated before and I apologize. I believe I corrected myself in an earlier post, however, concerning this. Here was my reply….again. Even though someone probably would have been physically stoned to death for committing acts of homosexuality (as with heterosexual adultery) in those times, the whole theme of the Bible is that your physical body here on Earth is of no consequence and that your eternal soul is what matters. Jesus sacrificed himself at the cross and ushered in a new covenant with his people (us). If one doesn’t accept the gift of his sacrifice, it will be their own fault because they have no excuse. Romans 1:18-19. The Bible is pretty clear that hell is not a pleasant place. It was prepared for Satan and the fallen angels. Jesus spoke of hell and described it as a place of horror. He said that it would be better to sever your own limb that might lead you there than to suffer what is there. It is also described as the grave, the pit, and the place of the dead. It is said that souls will burn forever in eternal torment and that this is the “second death.” It is said to be complete separation from God. The rewards in heaven for those who are faithful and trust in Jesus are described as being incomprehensibly great. The penalty for choosing the latter is apparently equally the reverse. I believe they should be able to live free, without risk of assault, and with equal rights as anyone else also (i.e. life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). Included in this, I believe they should have legal protections just like anyone else. However, in the case of marriage, any long-standing society the world has ever known has existed with families consisting of one man and one woman. For the most part, that is also how we define it here in the US. Privileges and protections associated with marriage and family should be limited to legitimate marriages and families. If two homosexuals want to be partners, that’s fine. They’re free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else. I don’t believe it’s just the Christians provoking the homosexual’s movement. I believe that’s mainly attributed to conservatives, in general. Christians just make up a portion of that group. Also, if it truly was just a “block party” gathering/get together, there’s nothing wrong with that. That would be like a huge party of skydivers. If it has a political motive or undertone with an attempt to draw attention and invoke change in the system, then it is open to peaceful protest. Even if the protestors are Christians. If a Church, whatever the denomination, openly goes against what is clearly stated in the Bible to be wrong according to God, then they are as wrong as anyone. That church is even more so, in my opinion, because they represent many and are leading them astray either in their teachings or the example that they set.

Not walking away from this. I've got to go for a while. Be back later.

The point in my previous statement was to point out that we all have our own “demons” to deal with in our own way. People with homosexuality are no exception whether they are born with that tendency or they learned it from the environment that they grew up in. There was a guy in college whom I considered a good friend who displayed many homosexual traits. He hung out in our group of friends and always tried to mask it by constantly surrounding himself with girls. That’s one of the reasons I hung out with him back then because he was so good at that. I’m not homosexual so I can’t speak as to what he was feeling inside but you could draw assumptions based on his actions sometimes. However, I don’t see the relevance to your question either. I liked him because of the person and not his homosexual mannerisms. That doesn’t change anything in regards to the topic of discussion.

No, it does mention female homosexuality. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:24-32

Christians aren't pushing hate at all. Completely the opposite. We supposed to love the sinner who is also our brother. That doesn't mean that we're not supposed to point out what he/she is doing wrong. That's where the misconception comes in. It is clearly stated in the Bible that God hates sin. Homosexuality, as a sin, is no exception. I don't need your pity but thanks. Good luck with your plan. You'd better be right.

They wish to make it clear that they exist and in considerable numbers, more than many ethnic minorities that exist in the US. And they want equal rights. This quote above from kelpdiver concerning the “gay pride” marches/gatherings/block parties, whatever you want to call them, leads me to believe that they are pushing a political agenda and not just gathering to broil hamburger over the grill.

Not trying to be hostile here dude. If you want to instead base your morality from society comprised of people with flawed character, that's your choice. As I said before, I've got no problem with you believing how you wish. Good luck with that. Your description of the Bible, however, show a lack of knowledge and understanding of what it's truly all about.

As is your choice. I've got no problem with that. Good luck.

As a man, I resist my natural impulse of infidelity every day. Not just in the physical sense. In the mind. Just as bad in God's eyes.

I gave an answer. You just can’t accept what the Bible says. Nothing happens without God's prior knowledge. Everything is according to his plan. God is in control. That is where the difference between you and me lies. You still go on believing in all of what I call "this mythology" in spite of where it falters logically, and I say that if an infallible god were really responsible for it, there would be no flaws and it would all hold up perfectly, leaving no gaps for questioning or doubt. But then you just come back with the catch-all of "you have to have faith." How convenient. Faith is what is required of me wherever your story doesn't hold up. Nice. There are no flaws in God. There are, however, flaws in humans. Just because you don’t understand all that is described in the Bible doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. God, who created the universe (think about that), is incomprehensible to us. The Bible was given to us in order to provide an understanding but not necessarily a complete understanding. If that weren’t the case and you could know everything about everything, you’d be equal with God which you are not. Even to assume that level of understanding is achievable by us would be the height of human pride and arrogance. Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me if you understand. Job 38:2-4

You’re misquoting the Bible verse above. Leviticus is an Old Testament text and Jesus wasn’t born yet. Below is a summary I posted months ago concerning the differences in Jewish law. The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was specifically that of the nation of Israel. Even though someone probably would have been physically stoned to death for committing acts of homosexuality (as with heterosexual adultery) in those times, the whole theme of the Bible is that your physical body here on Earth is of no consequence and that your eternal soul is what matters. Jesus sacrificed himself at the cross and ushered in a new covenant with his people (us). If one doesn’t accept the gift of his sacrifice, it will be their own fault because they have no excuse. Romans 1:18-19. The Bible is pretty clear that hell is not a pleasant place. It was prepared for Satan and the fallen angels. Jesus spoke of hell and described it as a place of horror. He said that it would be better to sever your own limb that might lead you there than to suffer what is there. It is also described as the grave, the pit, and the place of the dead. It is said that souls will burn forever in eternal torment and that this is the “second death.” It is said to be complete separation from God. The rewards in heaven for those who are faithful and trust in Jesus are described as being incomprehensibly great. The penalty for choosing the latter is apparently equally the reverse.

The quote you’re referring to is this, "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 You’re obviously missing the point. Did you read the article I linked to concerning sin? Here it is again. http://www.billygraham.org/print.asp?i=534&t=qna The point is that sin is sin whether it is homosexuality, robbing the food mart, or calling someone a “fucktard.” The verse is referring to spiritual death and not hanging someone from a tree because they are different from you. Total separation from God. Hell. We are all dead in our sin. God is holy and we are separated from him by that sin. He provided a way of salvation through the blood of his son Jesus at the cross. His forgiveness is a free gift but you have to accept it. You can choose not to but there are consequences. Anyone who uses any of the verses that I’ve quoted to justify brutalizing someone that they don’t agree with is completely wrong and unjustified.

Not following you here. What specifically are you talking about referring to the homosexual agenda? Neither I nor any Christian I’ve ever heard of supports beating people up people because of their sexual preference. It is certainly not biblical. Your comments make it pretty clear that the gathering in Philadelphia was probably more than just a block party for people to get together and enjoy music. Based on your comment, I derive one agenda: To normalize the homosexual lifestyle in our culture using the tactic of equating their struggle with the struggle of ethnic minorities. That way, they achieve minority status and gain all the benefits that come with simply because they are attracted to the same sex. I don’t see the discrimination bit, though. How am I discriminating based on the Bible by not accepting what is clearly stated as an immoral behavior. Just like any other immoral behavior. I’m not singling out homosexuality in that matter. Nothing anyone does in San Francisco is going to scare me, make me “squeamish”, or intimidate me in the slightest. I’ve seen far worse here as well as other places around the world. But, then again, that’s one of the reasons I call Georgia home now.

I don't see the coorelation in reference to the point PhillyKev was trying to make. Jews: Can be a person's ethnicity and/or religion. They don't believe or accept Jesus for who he claimed to be and that is also a sin. I don't know that they're pushing a political agenda here. I could be wrong. Homosexuals: May have a biological factor in that someone may be born with a predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Also may possibly be a result of one's environment. In any case, the homosexual "chooses" to act on the impulse which Christians believe is wrong and immoral. They have a political agenda which is to normalize their lifestyle in our culture. This could then affect the family structure in general and everything associated with it. That affects us all. Therefore, I can't think of a reason why there would be a protest of a Jewish rally like there would be against a homosexual one. If I'm way off base and still don't get it (it's been a long day), I offer this attachment.

That’s just speculation. And another question: If a white male actor requested that love scenes with black females be removed from his movies, citing concerns over how his fans would react, would he be branded "racist"? Not necessarily. Without further evidence, that would just be spreading rumors.

I’m sorry. I was born in Alabama and am kind of slow. What are you getting at in reference to what PhillyKev said about protesting a “gay” rally vs. protesting a “Jew” rally?

I don’t really know all of the reasons why the others that you mention were not included. I believe some of them were written well over 200 years after the fact, however. Maybe that was one of the reasons relating to their reliability. The Gospels which were included were all written within a relatively short period of time of the death of Christ. Prior to that, much was transferred by word of mouth which was the custom. Anyway, I see the preponderance of the evidence leaning towards the reliability of the text. The ones that “didn’t make the cut”, however, do not take away from the truth in the ones that did. I’m truly sorry that you don’t share in my faith. I do not believe that homosexuals are going to hell simply because of their sexual preference. Yes, I do believe that their lifestyle relating to their sexual preference is sinful. I in no way, however, put myself on a pedestal above anyone in reference to righteousness. I’m not perfect, just forgiven. In reference to Jews, I don’t think of them any differently than anyone else who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ. I think I’ve made the point clear as to what Jesus said that we must all do. Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion. Homosexuality is a choice in lifestyle. I don’t see the comparison in reference to protesting a demonstration.

I know you’re stance. I’m just stating what I believe to be true. IMO, the Bible is accurate enough to be considered trustworthy and, therefore, an authoritative source for my position. Many others will agree with me. Some will not (like you). I’m ok with that. In reference to your statement about corroboration, however, the Gospels all corroborate each other.