[Ax]

Originally Posted by Niflmir

But that section comes from the book of Leviticus, whose context is one of historical law. That is the larger context I am speaking of. It contains a multitude of other laws that you I think you would agree are wrong, it is an illustration of what was once wrong, not a code with which we should currently live our lives.

You are seriously misguided if you think that the situation has changed so that homosexuality is acceptable. I mean seriously. Look at the passage in Romans, the same thing is happening today as it has always happened, nothing has changed. God meant for it to be one man and one woman, homosexuality is a sin. I'm not promoting a ban on gay marriage, that has nothing to do with this, I can't believe that you can look at the bible and not think that homosexuality is not a sin. The political structure of the time is not applicable in this argument.

Are you also going to argue that we should hate our enemies?

How about pay taxes? Matthew 17:24-27 and Matthew 22:15-22

Are you gonna throw Jesus out with Paul because the political structure has changed? I mean, Caesar's head isn't on our dollar bill, lets not pay taxes and share a cell with Hovind.

[Niflmir]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

You are seriously misguided if you think that the situation has changed so that homosexuality is acceptable. I mean seriously. Look at the passage in Romans, the same thing is happening today as it has always happened, nothing has changed. God meant for it to be one man and one woman, homosexuality is a sin. I'm not promoting a ban on gay marriage, that has nothing to do with this, I can't believe that you can look at the bible and not think that homosexuality is not a sin. The political structure of the time is not applicable in this argument.

In the same way I can say that "Look at the passage in Romans, I can't believe that you can look at the bible and think that it is ok for people to rebel against their governments." or worse things if you stick to interpreting Leviticus as ethics.

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Are you also going to argue that we should hate our enemies?

How about pay taxes? Matthew 17:24-27 and Matthew 22:15-22

Are you gonna throw Jesus out with Paul because the political structure has changed? I mean, Caesar's head isn't on our dollar bill, lets not pay taxes and share a cell with Hovind.

I don't mean this at all. A denial of one statement as universal is not automatically an acceptance of its antithesis, these issues are not dichotomies. Although, that is a good jab at Hovind.

My question is, how has society not changed such that homosexuality is no longer taboo? Once we couldn't eat pork because of trichinosis, just as long ago it was not safe for homosexuals because of rampant homophobia. Where I come from, Canada, there are already practicing churches where homosexuals can go and be wed.

To the pure, all things are pure.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Niflmir

In the same way I can say that "Look at the passage in Romans, I can't believe that you can look at the bible and think that it is ok for people to rebel against their governments." or worse things if you stick to interpreting Leviticus as ethics.



I don't mean this at all. A denial of one statement as universal is not automatically an acceptance of its antithesis, these issues are not dichotomies. Although, that is a good jab at Hovind.

My question is, how has society not changed such that homosexuality is no longer taboo? Once we couldn't eat pork because of trichinosis, just as long ago it was not safe for homosexuals because of rampant homophobia. Where I come from, Canada, there are already practicing churches where homosexuals can go and be wed.

To the pure, all things are pure.

I don't understand. If adultry became socially acceptable does that mean it would be okay because the Bible was be written in a time when it wasn't acceptable? That just seems like a way to justify anything you want.

[bobthecockroach]

Ahem, this is not the Theology forum.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Ahem, this is not the Theology forum.

I'm sorry Bob. Sometimes subjects overlap. This time however... It just got off subject.

Anyways. The wise idiom here is the "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

[acrossthesirion]

Sorry

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Niflmir

As for Romans, that book too comes from a different historical context than our current times. Unlike the message espoused, again, every one in the civilised world, and especially citizens of the United States of America would say that it is right to rebel against wrongful rulers. They would not say that rulers are God arranged and inerrably righteous.

yet to do that is to ignore the word of God in context for the arbitrary whims of man. This is setting modernity up as God. Who is being worshipped here is evident by whom you are suggesting listening too. The American Revolution was sinful.

I am one of those very people. I admit wholly to ignoring certain, barbaric old laws and messages. I hold that a celebration of love for people and an acceptance of how God made us is what Christ told us to do and the only way to move forward towards a world without hate.

By ignoring his very words on the subject for the words of men who have rejected the truth by suppressing it in ungodliness? I know this is not the theology forum, however, advice which runs contra-scripture must be countered.

[Niflmir]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

yet to do that is to ignore the word of God in context for the arbitrary whims of man. This is setting modernity up as God. Who is being worshipped here is evident by whom you are suggesting listening too. The American Revolution was sinful.

By ignoring his very words on the subject for the words of men who have rejected the truth by suppressing it in ungodliness? I know this is not the theology forum, however, advice which runs contra-scripture must be countered.

If we want to talk about whether homosexuality is contra-scripture or not, we can open another thread and I will gladly join the discussion there.

The idea that we should hate the sinful acts of homosexuality but not the people that identify themself as homosexual is a semantic cop out. It is hateful in and of itself, but it is hate covered over by the idea that "they can choose not to sin." Essentially the same as saying "I don't hate you, I hate who you identify yourself to be." Although I am no expert in hate speech and all of its nuances, there are many people who devote their lives to fighting these sorts of hate messages. There are so many of them that homosexuality was added to our (the Canadian) list of basises for hate crimes.

As we study ourselves and those around us, we learn a lot about how we behave. It is in the past century that we have learned that these sorts of ideas engender hatred and violence. Nobody should enable anybody else when they seek justification for a view which is prone to violence.

[pompernikkle]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Well, that's just not realistic. You have to make some judgments for yourself.

I know.. and I'm still learning... still growing up!~

and.. I've always thought, or understood it in such a way, that the book of Leviticus was written for the Jews, so that they knew how to act, so they could be holy, pure, etc. before God. And then when Jesus came, died on the cross to save us, then the Old Covenant was demolished... no, sorry, replaced by the New Covenant -- where faith in Christ saves you, and we don't need to do all the little laws, such as not eating pork, or wearing clothes with more than one fabric... but God inspired the apostles to write those letters (those that are in the New Testament) so that we could know how to live by faith... and the Romans 14 chapter comes into mind: if you have the stronger faith, then don't make the one with the weaker faith stumble...

and one argument my friend makes is that it's better for him to live in this gay lifestyle because he is doing it in faith..

[BRBob]

The idea that we should hate the sinful acts of homosexuality but not the people that identify themself as homosexual is a semantic cop out. It is hateful in and of itself, but it is hate covered over by the idea that "they can choose not to sin." Essentially the same as saying "I don't hate you, I hate who you identify yourself to be." Although I am no expert in hate speech and all of its nuances, there are many people who devote their lives to fighting these sorts of hate messages. There are so many of them that homosexuality was added to our (the Canadian) list of basises for hate crimes.

From what I read here it looks as though you are making some assumptions that in and of themselves are erroneous. The first line: "The idea that we should hate the sinful acts of homosexuality but not the people that identify themself as homosexual is a semantic cop out." The assumption here is that your identity is partly defined by your sexual preference. This is simply not true. Your identity, according to the Bible, is that you are a child of God. You are one with him if you are a Christian. On a purely logical note, following your logic a person cannot hate what a prostitute does without hating the person, or conversely, you can't love someone without accepting what they do as part of the package. We can love people who have done distasteful and illegal things without accepting their actions.

Now, taking this a bit further, since the first line in the quote is erroneous, that which is based on it, the rest of the paragraph, is erroneous also. As far as that goes, "Hate Crimes" is a phrase that is useless in its redundancy. The type of crimes referenced by it require hate in and of themselves. It's not an additional crime, it is the cause of the crime. Murder of a homosexual, for example, by someone who hated him because of his homosexuality is no worse than murder of a person because because the murderer wanted his money. It's all hate, malice, whatever.

Anyway, God bless,

Bob
Spearfish, SD

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by BRBob

The type of crimes referenced by it require hate in and of themselves. It's not an additional crime, it is the cause of the crime. Murder of a homosexual, for example, by someone who hated him because of his homosexuality is no worse than murder of a person because because the murderer wanted his money. It's all hate, malice, whatever.

Not quite sure I agree. The person who murders out of simple hate has already killed their victim in their heart. I don't support hate crime legislation, but think of it in simpler terms: a child who steals a toy from a classmate because they want that toy, as opposed to a child who steals a toy from the classmate simply to make the other person suffer. It's two forms of selfishness, but one is aimless and the other is premediated based on the personage of the victim.

[redbaron]

if i kill you because i want revenge when you run off with my wife (which you haven't done, nor do i have), it's no less a hate crime than when you kill someone because you hate them for any other reason.

Killing someone in a robbery is usually muder 2 because it is a crime of the moment, not premeditated.

I don't think you can call any 1st degree (premeditated) murder something *other* than a hate crime, because you have to hate someone an awful lot to go in and plan it out and such.

I think you're more likely to see spur of the moment 2nd degree murders in the "hate crime" sector. Crimes of convenience and passion.

Doesn't make it any more right, and to me, murder is murder. [shrug]

[LabyrinthChick]

What about hired killers? They don't hate... they do it out of greed.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by LabyrinthChick

What about hired killers? They don't hate... they do it out of greed.

How is that any better? There is still pride behind it. Pride is the root of all sin.

[LabyrinthChick]

I was replying to this statement...

I don't think you can call any 1st degree (premeditated) murder something *other* than a hate crime, because you have to hate someone an awful lot to go in and plan it out and such.