Zombyboy... I need you to duct tape my hands and keep them from typing before I launch into a tirade against every Devout Christian out there, preaching The Love Of God and yet acting in the kind of hatefulness that even an antitheos would feel threatened about.

If I thougth that the kid (he's 17) who owns that site and his partners in crime were representative of Christianty, I wouldn't just leave the Church I'd probably jump of a cliff.

Why is it that people always refer to those types as "devout Christians" and then ignore the truely devout and good Christians that vastly outnumber the assholes?

Patrick, sorry, I guess because they so speak with such a louder voice. Maybe it's time for the truly devout and good Christians to tear out some tonsils.

Leviticus. OLD Testament.
Let's try the NEW Testament.

How about 1 Corinthians 6:9.
While Paul mentioned that most of the old laws found in Leviticus (like the ones you mentioned) are no longer needed, I have a feeling certain things are still not looked upon favorably post-Christ.
This of course, doesn't excuse anyone else in the world. We all have secret sins that God detests. A lot of Christians tend to project hate upon people, not on the sin, and even then they've got this big mote in their eye to take care of first.
BTW, everyone has temptations, and feels them. It's one thing to be tempted... it's another thing to succumb to it.

Pietro, I understand what you're saying--and, in fact, you could support it with a line from Romans that is just as anti-gay as the line from Leviticus. My point was, and is, that the anti-homosexual fundamentalists tend to pick and choose the verses that feel right to them, then condemn others for the same behavior.

Where Romans decries homosexuality, it also tells a woman to obey her husband because as Christ is the head of the church, so the husband is the head of the marriage. Certainly some fundamentalists still believe this, but many don't.

Jesus, as the fulfillment of the new covenant, didn't speak to us about homosexuality. There may certainly be some things (murder, incest, rape, infidelity) spoken of in Leviticus that are to be accepted as part of the laws of the new covenant (although, even accepting that there are laws other than acceptance, faith, and love is questionable), but the guidance is less than clear.

The thing that I think is important is an understanding of one's own fallibility--that is, that my interpretation and understanding may be flawed, as may be anyone else's. Condemnation and judgment should be reserved for the most obvious of transgressions; homosexuality isn't such a transgression in my mind. Murder is. Rape is. They are both expressions of hatred. Regardless of what I've seen posted elsewhere, homosexuality is just as much a potential expression of love as is heterosexuality.

To me, that's an entirely different thing.

BTW: the scripture that Pietro references says this:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals

Ah, but isn't adultery also an expression of "love"?
And yet, I don't think either homosexuality or adulter were what Jesus meant when he said, "Love your neighbor."

Actually, no I don't think that adultery is an expression of love--an expression of lust, absolutely, but not of love. Adultery causes pain to someone that you promised to love and care for; there's not much loving about that. And, when I say expression of love, I'm not talking about a purely sexual or physical thing.

Much of the love between a husband and wife is not expressed in sexuality--it's expressed in mutual caring and the kind of warmth that, to me, typify the love that Jesus was talking about. I think that same kind of love can exist is gay relationships.

Regarding Leviticus: I have read recently that there are three types of laws in the OT. "Civil, cultic/liturgical or moral, we are only bound to the moral. The civil(punishment) and the cultic(purity) were taken care of by that Guy Jesus who set them straight on the cross." I read this in a comment at http://mcj.bloghorn.com/201c.

Further, the "Jesus never mentioned homosexuality" argument is sort of weak (with all due respect). You could just as easily say, that Jesus never mentioned genocide, arson, etc.

"I think that same kind of love can exist is gay relationships."

Sadly, I haven't been able to find it. Maybe that's my issue. :-)

I've had friends who stayed with one partner for decades, who showed each other a commitment that I rarely see anywhere. It's possible, I would say, but much of gay culture makes it difficult.

As for Jesus, I understand what you're saying, but I would still say that there is a distinct difference between homosexuality and murder or rape; as I said, that difference in my view of the morality of those things makes a big difference. For example, Jesus never mentioned tattoos (that I know of) or cocaine or alcohol as being sins, either, and I don't think that imbibing in any of the above is a sin. Foolish, perhaps, but not sinful.

Something that I heard a long time ago, and still believe today, is that a thing is a sin if it is a barrier in your relationship with God. Overindulgence, or the worship of alcohol, could be considered sinful, but a glass of wine at dinner wouldn't be. That concept falls apart when what you are doing is also driving a barrier between another person and God--things directly harmful to others.

Sexuality of any kind could be a barrier--it need not be gay to be sinful. So could sloth or greed.

One thing to remember in this, as well, is that I consider the bible to be fallible. As much as I admire Paul, for instance, in reading the gospels, there are times that it is (to me) obvious that his views were very much rooted in the times he lived in. If I don't apply a filter to that, then I have a much harder time respecting women in positions of authority, for instance. I do not accept that God finds men to be any more capable or intelligent than women, as Paul would have it, nor do accept that God finds the love felt between those two friends that I mentioned above as being less than the love shared by a heterosexual, married couple.

I know I could be wrong; I know I could be paving my own road to a hell that I absolutely believe in. Yet, for me to have faith and believe in God, that God must be something that I can believe in. The God described by those who say "God hates fags" is not a God I can believe in, and I would choose eternal damnation over supplication at the feet of such a God.

I would never say "God hates fags". He loves all of us, and we are all sinners. All sins are equal in His eyes, as well.
I have no intent to claim any group of people is any more evil than any other.
On the other hand, I consider homosexuality to be a sin, for many reasons too deep to get into here. An extremely simple explanation is: I think homosexuality is more about physical sensations than the meeting of two hearts. Thus, I have no stomach for pop psychology explanations of having no choice, for embracing giving in to temptation as noble, for equating fulfilling desires with good, for equating freedom with morality.
And yet, I see where I might be wrong. I'm not God, after all. So in the final analysis, I urge people to live moral lives: if you really are in love, stay with them and never be physically unfaithful for your entire life, regardless of the legal options of marriage. If you claim your love is as moral, show it.
Unfortunately, I don't think it would be in my best interest to hold my breath waiting....

We are back to the idea... of between the homosexual as willfully homosexual. My Catholic background has always advocated the Love The Sinner Hate The Sin approach to homosexuality and the "associated acts."

I think it is a paltry attempt to "accept" homosexuals instead of instantly condemning them to hell, which of course, would be... damaging to the ideals of what Jesus Christ was trying to teach.

But then again, I may be being arrogant in assuming I know what the Christian God has been trying to say.

I apologize for my earlier caustic remarks, but every person sins in Pride in assuming they can discern exactly what God wishes to say.

And Zombyboy, fundamentalist Christians will never accept the idea of the Bible as a fallible document. Some would go so far as to study the original language it is written in, in order for them to find their answers.

Sadly, answers lead to more questions.

The king James version of the bible (published in 1611) shows 1 corin. 6:9 to read exactly; "Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inheret the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolater, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

To interpret effeminate as meaning boy prostitute and an abuser of themselves with mankind as meaning a homosexual seems like a bit of a stretch....

Where Romans decries homosexuality, it also tells a woman to obey her husband because as Christ is the head of the church, so the husband is the head of the marriage. Certainly some fundamentalists still believe this, but many don't.

Actually, that verse isn't in Romans, it's in another Pauline epistle: Ephesians, the 5th chapter. And here is the context:

"Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20 giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

21 submitting to one another in the fear of God. \ 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church."

And if you will notice, there is an even stronger command to the husband to love the wife as Christ loved the church. Know how he *loved* the church? He died for it. That's a pretty tall order.

We may not agree on much, though ... . Let's agree on this since Pieter has limited comments at his site and deletes ones he does not like.

Vote4Peter.

Pieter - whatever.

Bryan, thanks for correcting me on that--and, even in context, it's something that I'm uncomfortable with. Verses 22-24 call for submission to the husband in all things--even with the rest of the surrounding verses, that stands out as an absolute directive.

My error aside, do most Christians who use these same books of the bible to condemn homosexuality live up to all of the things that they are directed to do? If not, why not? They've managed to pick and choose what they believe while telling others that to do so is wrong.

He's not a fundamentalist as most of us understand the term, he's a 'reformed theonomist'. See:
http://pieterfriedrich.com/blog/entries/00000247.htm

And do a google search on reformed theonomist if you want to know more.

Thanks, Kathy, that lead to some very interesting reading.

Zomby,

NP, the verse directly above says "submit yourselves one to another..." before the verse you quote. There is substantial commentary among theologians about these verses, and a number of those are of the opinion that the point of the statements is to have a "leader," for lack of a better term. Along with the leadership of the home, however, the husband is the MORE responsible.

So to your question: That does sound like a pretty bad thing to require of women. But let's look at the person who is being *submitted to.* what is he required to do?

To provide further context, we might ask what kind of attitude Christ had in "loving" the church. Well, Philippians 2 gives further instructions that might shed light on this:
Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. 4 Everyone should look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. 7 Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, 8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death--even to death on a cross.

In short, the verses about submissions have been twisted out of all recognition by numerous folks who either a) want to make women into slaves or b) want women to hate their husbands and christianity for making them to be slaves.

When, in fact, the *leader* is to bear the more *submission* of the two, when you get down to it.

Your original post makes the point (a valid one, I feel) that people take verses from the bible and twist them to their own devices. I think you are doing the same with the verse from ephesians. For further clarification, you might be interested in knowing that the new testament provides that there is no requirement that a woman follow her husband into something that is unGodly or against her christian convictions, so there cannot be submission in *all* things.

You also ask:
do most Christians who use these same books of the bible to condemn homosexuality live up to all of the things that they are directed to do?

No.

If not, why not?

You know the answer to this one.

a) we are all sinful human creatures, given to foul habits, vain obsessions and lustful desires. Being a Christian doesn't give you a pass on temptation.

b) Christians are at all stages of intellectual and spiritual development. What is a significant problem to one believer is not to another. What one faith tradition sees as absolutely essential, another thinks is merely window dressing. (consider the split in the church over transsubstantiation)

c) there are people who claim the name Christian who are nothing of the sort. They grew out of a family that called themselves christians, but never had a life-changing experience of Christ (which is almost universally agreed to be essential to true Christianity). They adopt the form of Christianity because it is required of them by their culture, their family, their sense of duty - whatever.

d) there are those - unfortunately - who see in Christianity an opportunity to manipulate, to use people, and to achieve their own wicked ends. These people show up even in the new testament - the sons of sceva, Judas, the judaizers mentioned in galatians. Today, they are found in the ranks of televangelists or prowling the halls of churches looking for weak people to take advantage of.

But just because they do not *live up to* all those things doesn't change the nature of those requirements. If I lie, that doesn't mean that I should now say "oh, well, I guess lying is okay" or "oh, well, I guess now you can do adultery, because I lied." that's bad moral reasoning (and quite prevalent today, I might add). My moral failure doesn't excuse yours, in short.

They've managed to pick and choose what they believe while telling others that to do so is wrong.

I think you make an incredibly broad generalization there. Many people who disagree with the homosexual movement on issues about homosexuality do so out of deep conviction, having spent considerable time understanding the issues, praying about the matter, studying and weighing philosophical alternatives.

There are others who do so because "the pastor said it was wrong" or "because the bible said it's evil," or because "god hates fags," as one sorry excuse for a preacher is known to do.

Anyone who grapples with christianity in any great detail does so with the understanding that there are varieties in interpretation and in types of literature used in the bible. To take everything at a literal face value would be stupid. But they also do their best to sift through the documents and make moral stands based on the best understanding they have available.

Not everyone who disagrees with you about the homosexual issue is a hypocritical rube, zomby.

And even with all that, I have to admit that the majority of the church never meets the mark, because it's an incredibly high mark.