highwaystar101 said:
ManusJustus said:
Nonetheless, its part of the Bible, a book many Christians consider infalliable. Christians also accept other Old Testament teachings, such as Creation, Noah's Flood, Moses' Exodus, and so forth.
Besides, the argument against gay rights from many Christian groups is that homosexuality is an abomination against God, and this is exactly where they get it.
|
Yes, I know I said it in my earlier post, they consider it infallible.
So why don't they kill bullocks and lambs when they prey any more? Why don't they actively repress women? Why don't they stone blasphemers to death? Why don't they own slaves?
These things have equal/greater footing than condemning homosexuality in Leviticus, so why is it acceptable for people choose one quote from Leviticus and not another if the book is infallible?
It's just a homophobic agenda set out by the religions that condemn it, it has nothing to do with the religious texts. They have tried to justify their hatred by finding quotes from a book which is completely redundant.
-edit-
I guess what I'm trying to say is that by justifying their position by quoting Leviticus 18:22 and asserting that it is infallible is in effect saying that the whole book is infallible. If someone believes that Leviticus is infallible then they shouldn't be allowed to bring their hate crimes into our modern society.
Maybe I am creating a bit of a quasi-strawman argument, but I don't see how it can be any other way.
|
Here is the best way I can explain it as an ordained minister with 23+ years in the church:
The belief of Christanity is that Christ brought an end to the sacrificial system, through his death, burial and ressurection. The book of Hebrews explains it pretty clearly:
Hebrews 9
23-26That accounts for the prominence of blood and death in all these secondary practices that point to the realities of heaven. It also accounts for why, when the real thing takes place, these animal sacrifices aren't needed anymore, having served their purpose. For Christ didn't enter the earthly version of the Holy Place; he entered the Place Itself, and offered himself to God as the sacrifice for our sins. He doesn't do this every year as the high priests did under the old plan with blood that was not their own; if that had been the case, he would have to sacrifice himself repeatedly throughout the course of history. But instead he sacrificed himself once and for all, summing up all the other sacrifices in this sacrifice of himself, the final solution of sin.
27-28Everyone has to die once, then face the consequences. Christ's death was also a one-time event, but it was a sacrifice that took care of sins forever. And so, when he next appears, the outcome for those eager to greet him is, precisely, salvation.
Therefore, the ritualistic system of sacrifice was ended.
Now for laws of the OT:
Yes, Christians consider many of them ended. However, most of them are still in practice during the writing of the New Testament, and were presented as such through the life and practice of Jesus, and the early Apostles.
In the case of homosexuality, Paul mentions it specifically as something to be distained in Romans 1. Likewise, Jesus himself stated that women and men were created for eachother, as per Mark 10:7 - as opposed toward the opportunity of him endorsing homosexuality. On the opposite end, such as practices of meat-eating, one can look at Peter's vision in the book of Acts concerning eating various meats. Furthermore, when one argues the notion of homosexuality being OK from a Christian standpoint, I would argue the burden of proof is on the Bible - where exactly does it ever mention homosexuality to be OK in the New or Old Testament? Of reading the Bible through and through, dozens of times, reading Greek and Hebrew, there is not one reference of homosexuality being accepted by Christians as being fully Biblical. If it were permissible, you would think that Paul would of tackled it specificly in 1 Corinthians 7 when he gives a very long laundry list of how marriage is supposed to be, yet he keeps it entirely in the context of heterosexuality. I could go on and on about the other 1,000 times heterosexual marriage is lauded, and homosexuality is never mentioned in a positive light, but I'd really like to see someone give Biblical insight into where the Bible says it is perfectly acceptible as a Christian to do such a thing.
Now, for those quoting the Biblical saying of 'He who is without sin, cast the first stone' - every one of you fail to remember what the very next word from Jesus was. Do you know what it was? 'Go and sin no more'. Ah, there may be the crux of the issue. Sin is still sin, and we shouldn't do it. In the context of 'Go and sin no more', Jesus was talking to a prostitute who was about to be murdered by the Jews. Its an absolute fact that Christians should not 'hate' homosexuals. I believe the reason Christians do it is simply out of fear, homophobia, or some other sort of built-in mechanism that many heterosexuals have. Christians should love those that practice homosexuality, and not be militant against them. However, Christians shouldn't accept the practice as compatible with the those saying they practice the faith - for the same reasons that they shouldn't accept adultery, fornication, or any other sexual immorality as being OK, either. Lets not forget that sexual immorality is mentioned many, many times in the Bible in the NT. I don't see many VGC-ers complain about that though (despite the fact that the vast majority of VGCers here partake of pre-marital sex and maybe some swing, cheat, ect). Homosexuality should never be treated any differently than pre-marital sex, adultery, divorce, and swinging.
