Jesus would support gay marriage bill: Senator

[Hawk]

In other words, yes Christ uphelp the Old Testament teachings of Moses, including prohibitions on sexual behaviours, diet etc. So, I say again: why are Christians so selective? If one injunction applies, then all do. If any do not, all do not.

Because some Christians believe the old laws were no longer required as Jesus had become the perfect sacrifice, therefore following the strict rules and procedures for redemption was no longer necessary (eating certain things were unclean etc etc)

That is not selectivity, it is the result of centuries of scriptural debate and study.

Not everyone agrees, but it has been commonly accepted that Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt by most Bible-based religions.

As for Kimmy's post, good job dude, you got some 1337 researching skills Yes, the New Testament does not have God directly say 'you cannot be be having man on man relations and be a Christian' but his apostles say it, and if his apostles say it you can be damnably sure it is the truth.

I don't hold Paul's views with much credibility as he was formerly a persecutor of Christians and probably had many killed. His conversion doesn't erase his previous actions IMO. In fact, did Paul ever meet Jesus other than the famous light flash on the way to Damascus

You don't hold Paul's views with much credibility???? Please, don't speak anymore. Read his story and then judge, of course his conversion doesn't erase his previous actions. Heck, the guy despised his own actions and spent his entire life trying to atone for them (knowing full well he couldn't). That is one of the reasons he was probably one of the greatest Apostles, he had been on the other side and he was driven by the fact he knew God had forgiven him for being on that side.

Also keep in mind Paul was crucified upside down for being a Christian, I don't doubt his word or his credibility... as it doesn't appear his enemies had any doubt whatsoever.

Just a clarification, in Mark 12, when asked which commandment was the greatest Jesus said: 29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c]There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 5:19

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Greatness means little, and loving your neighbor as yourself means love the person... it does not mean accept and/or love the sin as well. I have no problem with gay people, I think they have a mental illness but if they refrain from the act of homosexuality they are perfectly ok. Otherwise they can't be called Christian. Period.

[Black Dog]

Because some Christians believe the old laws were no longer required as Jesus had become the perfect sacrifice, therefore following the strict rules and procedures for redemption was no longer necessary (eating certain things were unclean etc etc)

That is not selectivity, it is the result of centuries of scriptural debate and study.

Not everyone agrees, but it has been commonly accepted that Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt by most Bible-based religions.

I'll remember that

Yes, the New Testament does not have God directly say 'you cannot be be having man on man relations and be a Christian' but his apostles say it, and if his apostles say it you can be damnably sure it is the truth.

Which proves the patented ridiculousness of basing policy today on the works of mortal men thousands of years ago: paul was a man.

Also keep in mind Paul was crucified upside down for being a Christian, I don't doubt his word or his credibility... as it doesn't appear his enemies had any doubt whatsoever.

Wrong Apostle: that was Peter.

Greatness means little, and loving your neighbor as yourself means love the person... it does not mean accept and/or love the sin as well. I have no problem with gay people, I think they have a mental illness but if they refrain from the act of homosexuality they are perfectly ok. Otherwise they can't be called Christian. Period.

Obviously not all Chrsitian Churches agree.

[newbie]

Please, don't speak anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that's rather rude Hawk. I'm just offering an opinion much like the rest of the folks on the forum.

[newbie]

Not everyone agrees, but it has been commonly accepted that Leviticus should be taken with a grain of salt by most Bible-based religions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This kind of presents the problem I alluded to. What in the Bible do you take literally and which parts do you reject?

I have no problem with gay people, I think they have a mental illness but if they refrain from the act of homosexuality they are perfectly ok. Otherwise they can't be called Christian. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad not all Christian churches share your opinion.

[newbie]

You don't hold Paul's views with much credibility????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring to Paul's credibility re the issue of Jesus' support of gay marriage. To my knowledge he never knew Jesus and was going by what other people had said of the Saviour.

[Riverwind]

Kimmy, your analysis is good but I argue that you drew your conclusions based on the preconceptions you had when you did your research. It is possible to take the exact same passages and draw the conclusion that Paul is perfectly fine with monogamous homosexual relationships (or at worst has no opinion)

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Basically, the operative word in that sentence is 'offender' not 'homosexual'. If you replaced 'homosexual' with heterosexual you would never to interpret the passage to condemn heterosexuality: only those heterosexuals that committed some kind of offence. In addition, you are dealing with a translation of a concept from another language and society that maybe not be easy to translate. Other translations refer to 'sexual perverts' or 'sodomists' instead of 'homosexuals'. We also know that even in our society today people confuse homosexuality with pedophelia. It is quite likely that the confusion existed back then too.

When you look at the different translations of this passage you get a clear picture that Peter is condemning is a specific sexual act and not all homosexual relationships.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

This passage is also clearly condmening the sexual act and not the relationship. The operative word in the sentence is 'indecent act' not indecent relationship.

Of course it is impossible to go back and ask Peter for clarification which is why it is next to impossible to know for certain what Peter intended. If we want to get into a battle of interpretations I think most Christians should choose the one that is most consistent with Christ's overall message: 'Love your neighbor as yourself'

[kimmy]

Sparhawk, my intention is not to defend or justify Christian theology. As I've said before, I'm not a Christian. My goal here wasn't to jump into a theological debate (for which I'm uniquely ill-prepared) but simply to do some research and objective analysis of claims being made. And, I did not start with any preconceptions: I did not know what the New Testament had to say about same-sex marriage when I started doing my research. Nor do I have any vested interest in the discussion: I'm neither a Christian nor an opponent of same-sex marriage.

To briefly respond to the two points you raise...

Basically, the operative word in that sentence is 'offender' not 'homosexual'.

This passage is also clearly condmening the sexual act and not the relationship. The operative word in the sentence is 'indecent act' not indecent relationship.

...I'll just point out that the text you've quoted is from a modern translation. I an quite doubtful that the original text (or even earlier english versions) used "indecent act" and "offender".

My intention wasn't to endorse the Christian interpretation of that scripture, it was just to point out that Biblical opposition to homosexuality can be supported by chapters in the New Testament as well as in Leviticus, and therefore Christians willful disobedience of other laws laid down in Leviticus is not the "gotcha" that Black Dog seems to think it is.

And rather than starting a new message to respond to Black Dog, I'll just continue here.

In other words, yes Christ uphelp the Old Testament teachings of Moses, including prohibitions on sexual behaviours, diet etc. So, I say again: why are Christians so selective? If one injunction applies, then all do. If any do not, all do not.

I don't think Christians are being selective here. I think Leviticus seems to have been pretty much rejected. Implication for the same-sex marriage debate: none, because there is New Testament scripture which specifies against homosexuality too.

Are Christians in error in not obeying the laws set forth in Leviticus? Who am I to say? I spent a few minutes of looking into the issue, and found some discussion to the effect that the Epistle to the Hebrews directs Christians not to be bound by rabbinic law. I also found some question as to the origin of the cleanliness laws set forth in Leviticus. The definition of "clean and unclean" animals predates Moses. There is contention as to whether Leviticus is part of the gospel given to Moses, or just a collection of rules already observed.

I think I've shown Christian opposition to same-sex marriage is not dependent on Old Testament scripture.

I think the question of whether Christians should obey the Old Testament's ban on certain food types and other practices is somewhat outside the scope of this message board. I don't actually know what the official church line is. However, it is certainly no secret that many Christians do not obey Old Testament teachings on these issues (otherwise Ham wouldn't be the traditional Easter supper for so many...) and I suspect there is probably a theological explanation as to why this is. It might have to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews as I mentioned earlier, or it might be something completely different that I didn't come across. I simply don't care to research it any further.

I'd also question as to whether quotation you mentioned means what you say it does.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill"

Was he referring to the entire body of rabbinic law? Or just that given to Moses? Or was he speaking metaphorically ("the law" perhaps meaning society and its institutions?) I think if the interpretation was as iron-clad as you suggest, no Christians would eat pork, and Christians would stone to death anybody who mowed his lawn on a Saturday.

On the issue of why Christians don't follow the regulations set down in the Old Testament... I'm sure there's a formal explanation. I don't care enough to find it. Perhaps one of the Christians on the board can help; otherwise, if this is really eating you, perhaps take it up with a member of your local clergy.

-k

[kimmy]

(whoops. wrong button...)

-k