Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 06:40 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

First you criticize me for bring law into this discussion (when you were the one who first brought it in with the comment about "illegal aliens') and now you accuse me of ignoring your lengthy response about laws including slavery, ganja, and liquor.

LOL

Right, I brought in the comment about Josh's book, and that prompted your questions about the law.

Sorry, Liz. Clearly, our discussion is not going to go anywhere. I believe the topic relates to religion and religious tolerance and I intend to focus on that topic.

Well OK, but I have to wonder why you asked: BTW: Are you in favor of people breaking the law, i.e., entering this country illegally? Is that what it means to be tolerant? What laws should we tolerate being broken and which should be enforced? Do each of us as individuals get to decide??

Is my answer to that question no longer relevant to you? It was a whim or something?

Just wondering...(and willing to drop it now if you prefer)

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 06:51 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

This seems like a good sermon to post here and it deals with our topic.

I got permission from the minister to do so (this is part two of a series, if anyone is interested in part one let me know and I will send it, it doesn't deal with tolerance, really):

Why Did Jesus Die?
Part 2: Good News for the Religiously Disenfranchised

Luke 6:1-11; Galatians 5:13-14

"Why did Jesus die, and what's it to me?" We started talking about that last Sunday. For many, it is one of those questions we know is important or that we have been told is important, but that we just don't understand. If you are one of those, you are not alone. Nor is your predicament a new one.

I don’t think that the cause of Jesus’ death and it’s meaning for us are unsolvable mysteries. Last week I suggested that the first reason Jesus was killed was his identification with the people Rome was oppressing, and that made him a threat to Rome. I also suggested the cross may be understood as good news for oppressed people because of Jesus' identification with them,
and that his subsequent execution by the Roman government, was a message for all time that God is not on the side of the powerful. "Might" NEVER "makes right,” and the oppression of poor, powerless and abused people is never the will of God. That is good news for oppressed people.

Today, I want us to explore the question: How is the message of the cross good news or "sinners?" In its most fundamental sense, "sin" is estrangement from God, from nature, from each other, and even within us estrangement from the person God created us to be. "Sin" certainly plays a large part in the Bible; you can turn to few pages that do not have something to say about "sin and sinners."

In the New Testament the word "sinner" is used in two related but fundamentally different ways. A “sinner” is not only one who is alienated
from God; the word "sinner" was also a derisive term used to describe all of those people who didn't keep the incredibly detailed requirements of the Jewish Law in Jesus' day. I call these “sinners” the “religiously disenfranchised.” These were people who were made to be sinners because they did not keep all of the minute details of the law. Many people didn’t have the luxury of keeping all of the intricate requirements of the Law in Jesus’
day. They had to work for a living, and keeping the Law as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees had almost a full-time occupation, a luxury afforded only to the wealthy and the professional religious people. But there were others who were also “made sinners” by this interpretation of the Law, especially women, the sick, and persons we would now say had “handicapping conditions.”

When the gospels speak of Jesus associating with “sinners,” it means that he associated with both kinds: those who were alienated from God because of their real sin, and those who were considered excluded from God's grace by self-appointed "Gate-Keepers." It is these latter “sinners" – those I have called the “religiously disenfranchised” – with whom we are concerned today. The former -- those truly alienated from God -- we will consider two
Sundays from now.

What does Jesus' death have to do with these "sinners,” those I would call the "sinned against by the religious establishment?" Last Sunday I gave you the first of three reasons I believe Jesus was killed: the Roman government
crucified Jesus on the charge of sedition. The second reason he was killed was that he was a threat to some religious leaders, self-appointed
"Gate-keepers" of God's grace.

What did Jesus do that so angered some of the religious leaders that they would collaborate in a plot with the Romans to get him killed? His ministry appeared to be a direct attack on them and their attitude toward the Jewish Law. In the passage we read today Jesus seemed to go out of his way to violate the Sabbath laws. He and the disciples walked through grain fields on the Sabbath plucking and eating as they went along. They didn't ritually wash their hands. And then Jesus healed a man with a withered hand on the
Sabbath, violating the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. This was not an emergency. He could have waited a day and then healed the man, but he didn't. Violation of the Sabbath was a capital offense, punishable by death. The religious leaders were so enraged that they began to plot against him, to find a way to destroy him.

Jesus appeared to go out of his way to be classed as a "sinner." He not only violated the Sabbath laws, but also the purity codes, which forbade
physical contact with, for example, lepers, corpses, and menstruating women.

Jesus touched each of these, becoming legally impure. Moreover, Jesus became known as "a friend of tax collectors and sinners." The condemnation
of Jesus as a "sinner" is rooted in his own actions and teachings. Jesus identified with the religiously disenfranchised as a matter of deliberate choice.

The good news of the cross is that God stands opposed to what the Law had become in Jesus’ day. It had almost become a caste system that placed people into categories of clean and unclean, godly and ungodly, circumcised
and uncircumcised, righteous and sinners. To uphold this interpretation of the Law is to side with the opponents of Jesus and to approve their verdict of rejection and execution. But to stand with Jesus is to say that God is on the side of those who were made to be sinners by the religious system.

While there are many today whom we might consider as "sinned against by the religious system," and there are doubtless persons here today who have felt that sting, I would like to consider whether or not persons who are homosexual are in fact persons who have been “made to be sinners by the
religious establishment.” I wonder where Jesus would stand on this perhaps the most divisive issue in the United Methodist Church today. The first time the issue was addressed by the General Conference was in 1972. The position taken was this: "Although we do not condone the practice of
homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching, we affirm that God's grace is available to all." At each General Conference since that time, the position has been unsuccessfully challenged.

It has been enlarged to include prohibition of ordaining homosexuals into the ministry of the church. And, in 1996 action was passed to prohibit ministers from performing ceremonies blessing same sex unions. The Judicial Council (the Supreme Court of the UMC) has since upheld that latter position. Although the last General Conference, held in Cleveland in May 2000, reaffirmed the church’s stand on the issue, there was significant dissent, including thirteen bishops. The United Methodist conferences of the
Western Jurisdiction have also voiced their emphatic disagreement with the church’s policy.

Those who defend the church’s policy say that they do it because the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality. And it is true that there are seven to nine references, some in the Old Testament and some in the letters of Paul in the New Testament, that condemn the practice.

There have always been Christians, from the first century on, who have held that not all verses of
Scripture are of equal weight. This is not a new idea. And Jesus himself confirmed it. When he said that to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself was the greatest of all commandments, the clear implication is that other commandments or teachings in the Bible are secondary to that one. Not only in his teaching, but in his practice as we saw in today's Gospel reading, Jesus intentionally and with some regularity violated Old Testament law, and that Jesus' disregard for such laws so enraged the religious leaders that that was one of the reasons he was eventually put to death.

I think Jesus made clear his belief that not all of the laws of the Old Testament were binding in his day. I submit that on matters like slavery
and considering women as property, we already understand that some of the Bible teachings are not binding on us now. It is important to note that while Jesus had much to say about sexual relationships between men and women, we have no record of his ever saying anything about homosexuality.

The apostle Paul is the New Testament source of teaching about homosexuality. He considered it "unnatural," and that's why he condemned it.
(Romans 1:26-27) But what if homosexuality is in fact "natural," that is, it is just the way some people are born, perhaps as many as one out of every ten? This is the message we have been receiving for years from medical science.

The American Psychiatric Association has long held that "All the evidence would indicate this is the way people are born."(1) At its annual meeting in December 1998, the American Psychiatric Association's Board of Trustees
went a step further, voting unanimously to reject therapy aimed solely at turning gays into heterosexuals, saying that it can cause depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.(2) In taking this action, The American Psychiatric Association joined the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Social
Workers, and the American Academy of Pediatrics in making a policy against reparative or conversion therapies.

There was a time (and still is in some remote parts of the world) when the birth of twins was regarded as the work of the devil. There was a time when epilepsy was considered demon-possession. There was a time when being born
left-handed was thought to be wrong and required changing. Is homosexuality like that? Is it something we thought, like the apostle Paul, was
"unnatural," but now know simply to be another way of being? If the American Psychiatric Association is right, then our continued maintaining that homosexuality is unnatural, and sinful, is not only wrong but harmful to all who are so born.

I believe that the position taken by a majority in our church, and in other churches, is simply wrong. Scripture has been used to make "sinners" of a whole segment of the human population, perhaps ten percent. It took the Roman Catholic Church over three hundred years to admit publicly that it had been wrong in its condemnation of the discoveries Galileo made of the universe. It took our church -- The Methodist Episcopal Church -- one hundred years to learn that the issue of slavery couldn't be compromised, and almost another one hundred years to get over the split it had caused.

It also took our church over one hundred years to learn that women's rights and status in the church could not be compromised. I hope it will not take one hundred years and a split in the church to learn that the issue of homosexuality cannot be compromised either.

Are there any here who have been excluded from some church fellowships, not because you had done something really wrong, but because you didn't believe the “right things”? Because Jesus died for people who had been excluded, you can hear the good news that God loves you.

Are there any here who have tried to make sense of what it means to be a Christian but you still feel you just don't fit in? Because Jesus died for people who had been made to feel they don't fit in, you can hear the good news that you are not outside of God's love.

Two criminals hung on crosses on either side of Jesus. They were considered "sinners" by the religious, and unworthy of God's mercy. Not seeing beyond his own pain one railed at Jesus: "If you are the Messiah, save yourself and
us." Sometimes, out of our own pain because we feel rejected, excluded or unworthy we rail at Jesus. But, remember the one on the other cross. That one, suffering the same pain as the other, saw through his pain the lengths to which Jesus went to show God's love for all people. He called out, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And when we see the lengths to which Jesus went to show God's love for persons who have been religiously disenfranchised, we may join with the one on the other cross, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

(1) Release from the American Psychiatric Association, # 98-56, December 14,1998

(2) Associated Press story, December 15, 1998.

(edited out the bold of the sermon per request)

**JM1** · 03-04-2002, 06:52 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

"I would guess Dyoll refers to scientific evidence of dinosaurs and the like, things that don't fit in with the common interpretation of the Biblical story of creation which, as I understand it, makes the earth only several thousand years old"

Ohliz, please point me to where any Biblical writer estimated the age of the earth.

**JM1** · 03-04-2002, 07:00 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Ohliz, re this sermon: This is the life, death and resurrection of our Lord writ small.

Spare us.

**Guest** · 03-04-2002, 07:07 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

I believe that the position taken by a majority in our church (regarding the sinfulness of the "homosexual lifestyle"), and in other churches, is simply wrong.

I am sure this Methodist and many other Methodists do believe the Church's teaching is wrong on this and other serious maters contrary to the unambiguous prohibitions in the Scriptures and the very clear teaching throughout history.

This is one of those times to "shake the dust off" one's feet and find a church that teaches Christianity and not Political Correctness.

"Go and sin no more" But, I guess if it's declared to be not a sin you can still do it.

What a great system!

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 07:11 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Ohliz, please point me to where any Biblical writer estimated the age of the earth.

..I said "common interpretation" of the Bible, not that anyone who wrote any part of the Bible said it took a few thousand years. However, if you "do the math" from Adam and Eve to the birth of Jesus, I believe you'd find thousands, not billions, of years had passed between the creation of the universe and the birth of Jesus Christ.

Here is an explanation of the source of the estimate of "thousands" of years:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

Science says 10 billion years passed between those two.

Perhaps I could have used a better example.

Most scientists would take issue with the story of creation as it is in Genesis, the concept of the world being created in 6 days.

For example, light appears in day one, but the sun (which scientists agree at this point is the source of the Earth's light), does not appear until day four.

..and so on.

I myself don't generally see a conflict here, I think religion requires faith - if it were all provable by science faith would be unnecessary and what would be the point of religion?

Someone, maybe Dyoll, mentioned a "mental space" scientists leave to reconcile scientific beliefs, based on what they can observe and the rules of science, and religious beliefs, which are not subject to the "scientific method" of proving this or that. I have such a mental space set aside for my religious beliefs.

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 07:21 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

This is the life, death and resurrection of our Lord writ small. Spare us.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Does "spare us" mean "go away and don't disucss anything I don't agree with"? If so, I will respect that, after all you run tings in this yard.

I am sure this Methodist and many other Methodists do believe the Church's teaching is wrong on this and other serious maters contrary to the unambiguous prohibitions in the Scriptures and the very clear teaching throughout history.

I think the point is, that references to homosexuality in the Bible are not unambiguous. I'd like to discuss this aspect of the sermon posted, verse by verse, but again, I think a new thread, (if JM1 wasn't in fact asking me to leave), would be best. I will let JM1 respond first.

**Guest** · 03-04-2002, 07:25 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

I think the point is, that references to homosexuality in the Bible are not unambiguous.

They are unambiguous to those without a social agenda. Even Satan can quote scripture to suit his own purposes. Sorry, this man's contention is laughable and doesn't even deserve a serious response.

I would like to discuss theology. The above is political correctness and nothing more.

**JM1** · 03-04-2002, 07:45 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

" if you "do the math" from Adam and Eve to the birth of Jesus, I believe you'd find thousands, not billions, of years had passed between the creation of the universe and the birth of Jesus Christ"

What would lead you ohliz, to believe that it was the intent of any Biblical writer for us to engage ourselves in this kind of "math" ?

" Most scientists would take issue with the story of creation as it is in Genesis, the concept of the world being created in 6 days"

That's all very interesting, but since the Book of Genesis is neither a science text, nor a treatise on the methodologies used by God to create, I remain curious as to why scientists would want to "take issue"with what is written there.

" I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Does "spare us" mean "go away and don't disucss anything I don't agree with"? If so, I will respect that, after all you run tings in this yard"

Ohliz, please. That is an expression of exasperation. I have read and heard so many of these kinds of revisionist interpretations of what Christ's death on the cross "really means" that exasperated is all I can be when reading another. So no need to go anywhere. I am quite enjoying this back and forth and appreciate the tone of everyone's posts so far. Keep it going.

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 08:32 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Originally posted by JM1:
[QB]" if you "do the math" from Adam and Eve to the birth of Jesus, I believe you'd find thousands, not billions, of years had passed between the creation of the universe and the birth of Jesus Christ"

What would lead you ohliz, to believe that it was the intent of any Biblical writer for us to engage ourselves in this kind of "math" ?

Absolutely nothing. Yet there it is, that's the period of time that passes between creation and basically, now...do you disagree with that? I doubt that any Biblical writers thought we would do that, no, but then again, who knows what they were thinking would happen to their books thousands of years after they wrote them?

" Most scientists would take issue with the story of creation as it is in Genesis, the concept of the world being created in 6 days"

That's all very interesting, but since the Book of Genesis is neither a science text, nor a treatise on the methodologies used by God to create, I remain curious as to why scientists would want to "take issue" with what is written there.

It's an area where science and the Bible do not agree. If scientists were to look at Genesis those are some of the contradictions they'd find. That's all.

I have read and heard so many of these kinds of revisionist interpretations of what Christ's death on the cross "really means" that exasperated is all I can be when reading another.

What is the "not" revisionist interpretation of what Christ's death on the cross really means? How do you judge one to be right and the others to be "revisionist"? Hasn't the Bible been interpreted and reinterpreted for thousands of years?

So no need to go anywhere. I am quite enjoying this back and forth and appreciate the tone of the posts so far.

OK, just checking. So far so civil as far as I can see too.

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Liz

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 08:42 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

They (references to homosexuality) are unambiguous to those without a social agenda. Even Satan can quote scripture to suit his own purposes. Sorry, this man's contention is laughable and doesn't even deserve a serious response.

You don't have a social agenda? Oh, OK.

"Laughable and doesn't deserve a serious repsponse" - doesn't seem like a useful way to approach a differing viewpoint in a discussion.

I would like to discuss theology. The above is political correctness and nothing more.

That's a pretty selective definition of theology - this man is a minister, has been since he was 17 years old. He was the head of the Methodist Hunger project for many years, and served as a superintendent of the Methodist church of his state's conference for some time. He also has a PhD in theology and has basically served God his entire life.

So you may not agree with him but he is certainly qualified theologically, probably more than most people, and this sermon was given in a real, Christian church, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "political correctness".

..but if you have trouble discussing these concepts, OK, possibly someone else will come along in the thread who would like to.

**Reggae plus** · 03-04-2002, 09:19 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

ohliz, I fear that you are a lonely little petunia in an onion patch. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

See below. Tolerance and Diversity have just been sentenced to supposed 'hell in a hand-basket' yet again.

**Guest** · 03-04-2002, 09:24 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

You don't have a social agenda? Oh, OK.

The promotion of homosexuality by ministers, who ought to know better, is supporting a social engineering agenda and it stinks. If these ministers were truly concerned about those poor souls who are suffering with homosexual tendencies, they would encourage them, in no uncertain terms, so seek professional help and to seek God's forgiveness. Instead, ministers like this encourage us to understand and accept the depravity of homosexuals. Evidently, you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

Homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle -- and the most loving thing anyone can do (including ministers) is to help homosexuals realize this and offer them help and encouragement. Homosexuality is a serious health risk to the homosexual, leading to numerous chronic diseases and a statistically early death compared to the rest of the male population. Why would anyone want to encourage homosexual behavior like this Minister does? It is most unloving.

In addition the man who wrote the above 'sermon' has misrepresented the truth. He uses bogus figures pushed by the "Homopromo" crowd stating that homosexuals represent 10% of the population. That is a false statement (it's actually closer to 2%) and the homosexuals and their allies know it but use 10% anyway to give this perversion greater status based on the number of those afflicted with it.

This ten percent statistic used by this Methodist minister and the APA comes from a report published more than 40 years ago -- the famous 1948 study led by William Kinsey. The only problem with this report is that its findings were terribly flawed by the methodology used to collect the supposedly representative sample of the U.S. population.

Why were his findings flawed? For several reasons, first and foremost being that approximately 25 percent of the 5,300 individuals Kinsey studied were prison inmates, "who by the nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44 percent of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison. This was hardly a representative sample of the American population.
But there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would make a major difference in his findings.

In addition there was clearly a "volunteer bias." In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. In fact, the widely renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow pointed this out to Kinsey before his findings were published, but he refused to listen.

The Ten Percent Solution, Part II," Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 7. Also see Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichol, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990)

Even more laughable is the method that this Methodist minister uses to argue that Christianity does not really prohibit homosexuality.

Those who defend the church’s policy say that they do it because the Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality. And it is true that there are seven to nine references, some in the Old Testament and some in the letters of Paul in the New Testament, that condemn the practice. There have always been Christians, from the first century on, who have held that not all verses of Scripture are of equal weight. This is not a new idea. And Jesus himself confirmed it. When he said that to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself was the greatest of all commandments, the clear implication is that other commandments or teachings in the Bible are secondary to that one. Not only in his teaching, but in his practice as we saw in today's Gospel reading, Jesus intentionally and with some regularity violated Old Testament law, and that Jesus' disregard for such laws so enraged the religious leaders that that was one of the reasons he was eventually put to death.

Absolutely ridiculous! What he is saying is that if there is scripture that condemns homosexuality, then those verses are not of equal weight with more important verses. He goes on to say that Jesus had disregard for some OT laws and he concludes later in his pro homosexual sermon that homosexuals can also freely disregard the scripture and still not be considered sinners.

The sermon is sad and pathetic. This Methodist makes it possible for homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter, to disregard any commandemt or any law since we know that " not all verses of Scripture are of equal weight."

Well, Reverent Minister, who gets to decide what is not to be disregarded and what can be disregarded?

Oh, I get it now. We each can decide for ourselves what can and can not be disregarded. Everybody makes their own rules. Sin, what's that?

What a great system!

LOL [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

If you want to continue to talk about the merits of homosexuality, I am really not interested. But,I'm sure you will find a few others who will be. Try directly above for starters and a little entertainment to boot, i.e., short sentences and a few grunts.

**Fledgist** · 03-04-2002, 10:36 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Originally posted by JM1:
[qb]"I would guess Dyoll refers to scientific evidence of dinosaurs and the like, things that don't fit in with the common interpretation of the Biblical story of creation which, as I understand it, makes the earth only several thousand years old"

Ohliz, please point me to where any Biblical writer estimated the age of the earth.[/qb]

Bait and switch.

The "age" of the earth can be calculated from information contained in the Bible. That being so, you are dragging a particularly smelly red herring across the track.

Do tell us, by the way, why the Bible states that pi=3.

**ohliz** · 03-04-2002, 10:37 PM

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Originally posted by Angelfire:
The promotion of homosexuality by ministers,

I didn't read anything about promoting homosexuality, nothing like "everyone should be a homosexual" or "God wants us to be gay", which I would consider promotion. Promoting TOLERANCE of those who are homosexual maybe.

If these ministers were truly concerned about those poor souls who are suffering with homosexual tendencies, they would encourage them, in no uncertain terms, so seek professional help and to seek God's forgiveness.

Heaven forbid they should welcome them into the church and help them find God.

Instead, ministers like this encourage us to understand and accept the depravity of homosexuals. Evidently, you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

Sure don't.

Homosexuality is neither a normal nor a healthy lifestyle

Ahh..you're an expert? Can I assume you don't have personal experience with this?

The Ten Percent Solution, Part II," Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 7. Also see Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichol, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1990)

Ahhh...Judith Reisman, what a source to copy/paste a few paragraphs from, eh?

SOME of the interviewees were institutionalized, however 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education.

If anything you should criticize Kinsey for using white people only in his research.

Well, Reverent Minister, who gets to decide what is not to be disregarded and what can be disregarded?

Do you have a particular person in mind who interprets the scripture to your liking? I assume one interpretation is correct and one is wrong? How do you know this? How do any of us know whose is correct?

When the minister who wrote that sermon says some parts of the Bible are given less weight (and SHOULD be given less weight), this is the type of thing he means:

Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.

Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.

Why aren't "real" Christians (as opposed to this minister) organizing protests and picketing seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

This minister, for all he says, declines to challenge - this past Sunday anyway - the biblical references he mentions. There is ample evidence that not one of those actually refers to homosexuality.

That we can go through verse by verse but something I am seeing now in this discussion raises a question:

Whose interpretation of the Bible is valid? Is there only one interpretation? What do we do with the contradictions within the Bible (such as "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek", to name one most are familiar with).

Does Jesus "override" what is written in the Old Testament? If so, is the Old Testament to be discarded or are Jesus' words to be discarded?

Re: defense for the anti-gay position in the Bible, there really is none. The most popular:

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.

(portions of my response, here in bold, were taken from http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html )

Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads