religion : THE BIBLICAL CASE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY - HOW STRONG? [+] serious ballot by AMSearch created Wed Jan 05, 05 When you look at the three passages in the Bible that specifically discuss homosexual sex, the message is far from clear. In each occasion where we read of God's displeasure with homosexual behavior, we also read of other behaviors that either God condemns but Fundamentalist Christians ignore, or that Fundamentalists dislike and yet God seems to think is okay. The most common reference against homosexuality comes from Genesis 18 where God is about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (it’s where the word “sodomy” comes from). God sends two angels to warn the one godly family of the imminent demise of these cities, only to have the Sodomites demand that these two angels, who appeared like men, come out so they could rape them, which displeased God. However, Lot, the father of this one so-called godly family, offers to give his virgin daughters to these men so that they might rape them instead! Is this story really a straightforward statement about the evil of homosexuality? Likewise, in Leviticus, we're told it is wrong for a man to be with another man. However, within the same book we are also told that it is wrong to eat pork, and that eating shellfish is an “abomination” – the same word used for homosexuality. This same book says that we would not be committing sin if we still owned slaves, since Leviticus tells us such activity is okay. Why is it that so many Christians pick only the act they don’t indulge in to condemn? If the rules laid down in Leviticus still must be followed, why is it okay to have bacon or crab cakes– where does it say the church can pick and choose which Old Testament laws are still in effect, based on which ones they do or don’t follow themselves? But you might also point to the New Testament and Romans or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, both written by Paul. He offers a list of sins that will keep a person out of Heaven, and among them is homosexual behavior. However, also listed among these is adultery, and Christ says that anyone who has looked at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Straight Christian men will likely look at women lustfully throughout their lives and thus, in the eyes of Jesus, be in the same list as the homosexual. And they likely won’t insist that women veil themselves, or do away with their subscriptions to magazines with swimsuit issues, trips to the beach and the like. In other words, they won’t give up that sin altogether as they demand from gays. What happened to taking the log from our own eyes before pointing out the speck in another’s? In plain language, 2 Corinthians says that a woman should wear a veil when she prays (or cut off her hair if she will not). Paul even goes so far as to say “we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God”. It certainly seems that conservative Christians insist that the message against homosexuality is still valid because they themselves are not gay, but they ignore passages like the one regarding covering the head written by the very same writer because they don’t feel like wearing a veil. Another example of picking and choosing comes in Luke 16:18, where Christ defined a man or woman who has divorced and remarried as also being an adulterer. How many church members have been divorced and remarried, and doesn’t the church perform the weddings for these “adulterous” members? 50% of those who count themselves among the Religious Right are divorced, and more than 85% of those are remarried. What that means is, according to the Bible, that nearly 43% of the same people who condemn the gay man for his homosexuality choose to live in a lifestyle the Bible defines as adultery, a sin that supposedly ranks equal to homosexuality in God's eyes. So if you take this interpretation of homosexuals and adulterers being equal on some kind of sin scale, then the Christian man who lives with his second wife should stop his relationship. But ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to "turn from his adulterous lifestyle," he will more than likely refuse because "God's grace has already saved him." But such Christians often claim that the homosexual must turn from his "sinful" lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace. Why are so many Christians choosing to love and support the supposed “adulterer” and not the supposed “homosexual offender?” Isn't it is hypocrisy to pick and choose which lifestyle sins are covered by God's grace and which ones are not, or which “sinners” we should love and accept and which we should not? I think conservative churches in the case of homosexuality are a lot like the Pharisee who prayed good and loud in the temple about how thankful he was that he wasn’t like all those sinners out there. Recall that Jesus wasn’t pleased with that prayer. He preferred the prayer of the publican who went off into a secluded corner of the temple and focused on his own sins. Christ did not use his power to legislate or fight against those of his day whom others looked down on as sinners. Instead he ate and drank with them. He was kind and friendly to them and even protective of them. When the Pharisees came along and murmured about the sinners he was befriending, he called the Pharisees, not the sinners, a “brood of vipers”. Christ didn’t condemn the woman about to be stoned for adultery although we can be sure he didn’t approve of her actions. Instead he embarrassed her detractors by saying that anyone who had not sinned could throw the first stone at her - and not one got thrown. Christ did not raise money for his cause by claiming that those considered sinners in his day were ganging up to "destroy the family" even though the adulterers and prostitutes he showed compassion for were certainly damaging real and existing families, unlike gays. Instead he invited them to be his friends and followers. He also said "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. " Matthew 7:1-2 . So, is the fundamentalist claim against homosexuality Biblical, or is it another prejudice for which people can pick a few verses to justify? Fundamentalists are right to pick and choose verses Fundamentalists are wrong, the Bible's message isn't against homosexuality Fundamentalists are just nuts. You either follow all or none, not pick and choose Ballot #63887 : SEE RESULTS Comment: show your vote with comment?

v 2.0

© BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank: