Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a WASP straight female, Leviticus is troubling and a book we have discussed frequently at Bible study. The "rules" were written for the Jewish faith not for Christianity. Either Jesus abolished all of them or He didn't abolish any of them. To pick and choose among them; hold some up as the Word of God and ignore others completely seems terribly hypocritical to me and not in keeping with the spirit of His Word.
I just find it interesting that Christians believe those who don't accept Jesus into their heart will burn in 'hell' right?
So....Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc will burn in hell, am I correct?
And yet you don't see Christians wanting to take away their right to marry? (At least I'm not aware of any groups who are against the marriage of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc)
Christians only want to take away the rights of gays and lesbians because they are 'sinners'? Why not do the same for Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc?
I just find it pretty hypocritical to single out ONE group of people you don't want to have access to certain rights.
I just find it interesting that Christians believe those who don't accept Jesus into their heart will burn in 'hell' right?
So....Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc will burn in hell, am I correct?
And yet you don't see Christians wanting to take away their right to marry? (At least I'm not aware of any groups who are against the marriage of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc)
Christians only want to take away the rights of gays and lesbians because they are 'sinners'? Why not do the same for Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc?
I just find it pretty hypocritical to single out ONE group of people you don't want to have access to certain rights.
Why not be an equal-opportunity discriminator?
Not all Christians suscribe to those beliefs. Some churches which have opened their doors and welcomed gays and lesbians are now struggling to find common ground between those factions within their church who believe the Word is to be shared with all and to do less is to not walk in the footsteps of Jesus and those factions who believe homosexualiy is a sin.
While I do not think you will find many Christians that condone homosexuality irrelevant of whatever arguments offered, I do see the logic in that there is a discrimination particularly concerning the sexual laws and particularly supported by Leviticus and Romans.
That said it does appear that there is a grading system and thus some sins are not as abominable as others may be. I believe Jesus kinda levelled the playing fields in that He said that if you as much as think of adultery, you have in essence committed the sin itself. When Jesus dealt with the adulteress woman, He neither judged her or condemned her but He did say "go and sin no more." What we do not know is; did she never sin again? Unlikely. One needs to understand that in those times, it was OK for a man to put away his wife w/o a certificate of divorce and he was free to remarry but she was destined likely to turn to prostitution to survive if her immediate family would not support her - which in all likelihood was the case as not only was she disgraced by being put away, there was a double curse of rejection even by her own family.
Do we think Jesus was not aware of this scenario? Likely not.
I always wondered what would have been the case if it were a homosexual, secondly how were these folk actually caught unless there were sex-police peeking in the tents of folk - and lets be honest here, most sexual encounters happens discretely behind closed doors and at night (mostly) unless of course we are led to believe these folk did it behind the nearest tree like a dog or other animal. IMO this was a set up as where was the man? According to the law, both parties were to be stoned NOT just the female.
As a WASP straight female, Leviticus is troubling and a book we have discussed frequently at Bible study. The "rules" were written for the Jewish faith not for Christianity. Either Jesus abolished all of them or He didn't abolish any of them. To pick and choose among them; hold some up as the Word of God and ignore others completely seems terribly hypocritical to me and not in keeping with the spirit of His Word.
yet you cant ignore those which were reitterated in the NT...
"Abusers of themselves with mankind." I can see how this can be interpreted as homosexuality. But why don't we see laws against adultery being pushed by Christians? James Bakker would have been a good sponsor for this law.
I don't see any mention of homosexuality, but I do see mention of adulterers, fornicators, drunkards and revelers not inheriting the kingdom of God. So why are Christians trying to pass laws to ban gay marriage and not alcohol, premarital sex, adultery and reveling? I do know that a lot more "Christians" have premarital sex, get drunk and cheat on their wives than engage in homosexual activity. Maybe this has something to do with it.
I must be missing something here with this one.
yes you are missing something.....like the translation...interesting to see you misquote the reference....and to have either found a paraphrase bible which deletes the terms....homosexual, orgy....or to have deleated them yourself...
The point is God says dont do it....why must you assume 'all christians' to only care about one sin.....and not them all...did it also not list:
sexually immoral
idolaters
adultereres
prostitutes
thieves, greedy, drunks.....
need I say more..
Be mindful of this......this IS the Word of God....take it up with HIM if you have objections....
**Often the POINT is missed....God does not hate...people hate
God has a plan for your life....to be with Him....not lost in this world of sin
which is why there is a plan of Salvation....which I am sure you are aware of...if not just check out all those other threads...
I noticed in the begining of your thread your desire for argument.....if you need the oposing position defined...I would gladly discuss it with you...
there does seem to be alot you have 'missed'.....
yes you are missing something.....like the translation...interesting to see you misquote the reference....and to have either found a paraphrase bible which deletes the terms....homosexual, orgy....or to have deleated them yourself...
Actually no. This was from one of the older translations, not one of the newer ones where the term "homosexual" was inserted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
