Still like to ignore questions you don't like, I see. But, go on, do grab your bible.

No..your other questions are off topic and have been answered in other threads.
They were?! Hmph! Where?
My last ignored question was in reply to your comparison of biblical interpretation to science, so I guess you were off topic as well, huh?
Hey, didja find that bible yet?

OK folks.

Please tone it down a bit because, as was pointed out, this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

It looks as if tempers are starting to flare a bit. 

This is a "hot" topic and people tend to click on the "Post comment" button before re-reading their post.

Please be careful about what you are writing.

Thanks. 

I'd still like to hear an answer to the original question - why is homosexuality so morally wrong if the moral precepts of the OT are no longer considered relevant?

ARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

Raz:

I.JUST.DON'T.GET.IT.

I did not want to get back in this, but this is insane.

I don't have time to research every verse, but a very HUGE example off the top of my head, from the OT is Sodom & Gomorrah.

GOD killed every person in that town, save Lot & fam. This had nothing to do w/ "men following their own rules, spiritual death" nonesense. Again, GOD did it.

What Bible are you reading, sir???????????

What.do.you.not.understand, sir????????

That is all. 

Thanks, Malice. But I've gone over his stmt that I responded to:

razorphreak wrote:

OK let me explain something here....the "put to death" part is NOT for man to take upon himself to complete. It speaks of spiritual death, not litteral. If God meant it to be man to kill another man, that would be in direct contradiction to not murdering someone else.

However, he is TOTALLY ignoring all the verses where it is written that God himself puts people to death AND commands people's death (see Moses for example).

Again, don't have time to research all verses. There's tons of material on the web where people have researched it. 

Don't know what else to tell ya. It's all there--b&w... 

Here's one of MANY examples refuting Raz's paragraph above:

Numbers 31:7 

"They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man."

What am i missing? Please let me know???? 

This addresses Raz's claim:

 Lev. 20

"The people of the community are to stone him."

That's a law given to the people to carry out. Raz, from what i gather is trying to refute this verse.

Am i missing something?

Just say'n... 

maybe they stone them in spirit? 

yes, thanks. the point i was trying to get across. i have NO IDEA what Raz is talking about. Really. it's in the bible, b&w. period.

Did anyone but me find it ironic that anyone would believe that someone would offer up girls to supposed hoards of gay men for their use? 

Lev. 20:1

"The people of the community are to stone him."

LIAR... 

Not only that, but note that the women are treated like property.

Actually, the more I think about that, the more amused I am.  The gay men I know are totally horrified at the thought of "using" a woman!  

OK I'm not going to get anywhere with you guys on this thread.  No matter what I say to make my case you seem to have it already figured out anyway.

From debating all this on the book of leviticus, it reminded me for some reason of the following from the NT:

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

No matter what came from the OT, Jesus corrected ALL with his ministry.  The examples that dassercha lists are all not within the same context but no matter...oh and the one from 1 Corinthians to expell the sinner...didn't say kill, so there shouldn't be confusion there.

I'm not saying I'm wrong with what I've posted before but I want to end this back and forth because I feel that the focus got lost from where CHRISTIANS should stand on the issue of homosexuality. Again, what people do and what is God's will are quite often not one and the same...

 And that was based on a different question and it reverts back to a passage from Romans 9 starting with verse 14.  Take it in context ok?

Hey folks! 

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

No insults and absolutely no personal attacks. 

Some of this is getting perilously close to having this thread locked down.

"The Sixth Sense" had a clear story and a fictional context which the internal logic of the movie doesn't presume to transcend. Nobody comes away from it trying to glean more than is suggested so they can credit M. Night Shyamalan as the source of their morality. All the different denominations of every major religion suggest that scripture isn't clear (sometimes not even coherent), but something easily interpreted in contradictory ways.

Believers aren't even in agreement about the level of involvement of “god” in the bible's authorship. It's not understanding at work here, it's exercising preference. It's real progressive and all that you don't want to stone gay people, but you haven't demonstrated how your interpretation is specifically supported by scripture.

As I said before...nobody's perfect.   Not all believers are believers who are following God's word because they read it, they are followers of the crowd which is far more dangerous...

If they don't understand what they've read, or haven't read their dogma at all, what is it they actually believe? Many say they believe in “god,” but if they either don't know, or actively reject any of the prerequisites of being a legitimate practitioner, then their “religion” is an inaccurate label (even a conceit) for their socially, culturally and personally-derived moral principles. Because of lack of clarity in scripture, even with fundamentalists there is always an exercise of personal preference in interpreting scripture. The question isn't whether a typical Christian rejects or ignores parts of his or her dogma, it's whether he or she has a reason for doing so supported by said dogma. Again, the existence of so many denominations supplies the answer to whether believers are in agreement on this point. There isn't “a crowd,” there are a ton of splinter groups, each born of some impasse of practical or scriptural interpretation within a parent sect. What supports your claim that your interpretation is more accurate than others?

I won't be able to show you how my faith and scripture are saying the same thing because you are not reading the bible in the same way I am.

It always ends this way. Happy boiled egg day.

fine we are not reading the bible the same way , but i dont see why yuo can not exaplain how you interpert the bible different , since we have shown you multiple versus that contradict your statesments.  

while there might be many denominations, the commonality has always been Jesus.  While one dogma says baptism is valid at birth and another says no they have to be baptised when an adult and another says yes as an adult but backwards and a third says as an adult but only a spinkle of water, we all believe in Jesus as the savior.  The dogma differences can be put aside for that.  Now convincing others to do that is another story...

malice I've tried to explain what my faith tells me from the bible.  I can't do much more if all you see is that verse and not the fullness of the message.  I'm not the best explainer I guess so for that I'm sorry for that.  If I am wrong about the OT verses, which I'm still researching by the way, then I will admit I am.  I would add this however....as a Chrsitian, the New Testament holds more relevance for me to the issue at hand, the questioning of homosexuality as being immoral or wrong, and to that I'd rather hold than to the verses from Leviticus.  For me God is the same from way back when to now, and if Jesus came and explained that no one should be judged on earth or killed for Earthly sins, that is to say the sins of the flesh, then I will not subscribe to that form of hate either.  God is the judge for those who did not accept his son so I have no business condemning anyone. 

I'm not sure what you are talking about here other than, from what I can tell, approaching it from an odd angle.  Christianity didn't "break off" from anything and Islam was no derivative.  In it's purest (and simplest) form, Judaism is about the promise to Abraham and the laws given to Moses and following that way of life, Christianity is about Jesus fulfilling the laws from Abraham/Moses and following his example, and Islam is about the revelations that Muhammad was given from an angel.  My point is to show major differences between the three when you almost make it sound they are all the same...

Ummm really?  Where?  (and please don't include Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons as they are not Christian and you read my response on the What is Real Christianity thread.)

Thing is...Christianity is not a religion; its a way of faith.

If that's how you'd define faith...ok. 

You know, I really didn't think I'd need to do this.

I would LOVE for you to explain to me how this can be "interpreted" to mean something other than you believe hitler and saddam hussein could both be in heaven and that you concede this because we have no way of judging whether or not something is going with god's will.

That's a first. You dodge a question I didn't ask by asking me to ask it again. There's a reason I try to keep my questions as simple as possible, and don't think it's because I'm condescending and believe you won't understand them otherwise. Quite the contrary.

 I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Every "religious" text is said to be divinely inspired.  I can't speak of Judaism or Islam since my faith comes from a different motivation.

I thought I explained this in the other thread. 

OK.  I'm not exactly sure how you figure that...

To you I evade the question; I have answered the questions in accordance to my faith and according to the bible.  If that is what was asked that is how I'll respond.   

That's funny!  I had no idea that the story contained homosexuality, death, destruction and incest. 

yea I know what the dictionaries say...it's my opinion on it. Sorry should said that...

Religions to me have always been the stuff that man puts into place over God. Any organized dogma like Catholism, Baptist, Lutherian, that stuff, those are religions...know what I mean?

The reason my opinion Christanity is not a religion is because of the whole label thing; following the example of Jesus has been and is to me an action, a lifestyle, not what came from man but from God (not going to get into if God exists argument ok!)