A Rare Glance
You can use all the logic you want to deem my relationship with another guy "wrong", but if it's wrong, I don't want to be right. Ryan Dunn of buckshotmagoo.blogspot.comOccasionally, the mind that is at enmity with God and those who are of the liberal persuasion offer a candid glimpse into the way they really think. While those who push the "Gay Rights" agenda would have you believe that they really think they're lifestyle is "acceptable" even in their own eyes. The truth is, that it really doesn't matter to them whatsoever whether it is right or wrong. Their only interest is pushing their agenda further and further into society until they become accepted. They aren't interested in "right and wrong," just simply that you accept them. Don't believe me? Here's another quote from the same site....
Logic has nothing to do with this.There's no fundie Christian on the face of the planet who take an honest look at any stable same-sex couple with kids and deem them unfit to raise children. Yet they'll still fight to deny them that right as well as the right to marry, claiming that one mom and one dad is the way to raise kids...thus making same-sex marriage wrong, becuase marriage is the backbone of our society that makes this all happen.My response to this on their website?
Well, it would be nice for you if logic weren't part of the argument....I suppose if that little bit of information were to get out, that you don't think logic has a place in this debate, it would probably be an eye-opener for the people who are still "deciding for themselves." Everyone in my life that I know as a Christian approaches this debate from a logical standpoint. It has nothing to do with you raising children or not being able to procreate...it is a "right vs. wrong" issue and must be dealt with logically. The reason why you would like to leave logic out of the debate is because logic works against your side of the debate.To which I got the following reply: (also quoted above)
You can use all the logic you want to deem my relationship with another guy "wrong", but if it's wrong, I don't want to be right. Ryan Dunn of buckshotmagoo.blogspot.comMy response:
And therein lies the problem in getting your lifestyle elevated to an acceptable status. Your statement above says it all! The average American (those whom I would call "reality based people") is interested in wrong and right. And to simply disregard it for the sake of your wants and whims is only going to further serve to alienate your desired converts. But hey....that's okay by me. It doesn't mean that I want you executed or banished....I think you know that. But, neither can I condone or agree that your lifestyle is acceptable.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Logic itself obliterates any semblance of a "foundation" to the Gay Agenda. You may disagree that logic itself will point you toward understanding there is a Creator, God, behind everything, but God is the only logical explanation for why we are here! And even though sin and wrong don't matter to some people, it still matters to God and doesn't change the fact that we all are guilty and will answer for our sin, except God save us and redeem us, and cleanse us. To God be the glory!!!
posted by Mike at 3/22/2005 06:34:00 PM
31 Comments:
Mike, if you couldn't tell I was being facetious, I'm giving you far too much credit.
Ever heard of Luther Ingram? He had a hit in 1972 with a song called "If Loving You Is Wrong (I Don't Wanna Be Right)". My use of that line was a futile attempt at humor.
Of course, I knew you were quoting this song....but, as the rest of your post iterates, it really is the heart of your "message." It doesn't matter if it's wrong or right......
Mike... I have been reading your posts for some time now and after reading through your opinions on homosexuality and whether it is deemed "right" or "wrong" by GOD, or more likely, whether it is deemed right or wrong by you, I question your interpretation of the bible. The bible is full of ludicrous passages... writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. I understand that your faith is what brings your opinions and judgements to life, but why pick on homosexuality... why not other supposedly "wrong" choices being made everyday by millions of people? And, why is homosexuality wrong? Homosexuality IS NOT a conscious choice. It is an expression of one's inner feelings. Did you choose your life partner specifically because she was not homosexual? You could have chosen anyone to stand by you in this life, but you chose who you chose... but why? I garantee it was not a clear cut choice made from pure reason and logic, but the love and desire you felt in your heart... the same as any other human being.
Let me state....I'm certain that I make any number of fallacious mistakes....I've never claimed to be an expert....but neither have I seen 1 logical argument from the homosexual side of the debate.
Of course I believe my "lifestyle" as you so snidely put it, is acceptable
If you look again, I said you view it as "acceptable." But that you don't care whether it is "right or wrong." There is a difference.
As far as Margaret Cho goes...I agree, she's not intellectual. But, why then, does the left and the Gay Rights crowd use her in promoting their agenda? Is what she says not "fair game" when comparing accusations against the Right? "i.e. hate-mongering, bigoted, anti-intellectual" She is one of the most vocal proponents of the gay rights agenda, and as such, I don't think it hurts to look at her hateful comments. You won't ever finding me making statements like she makes.
But we do see you linking to and praising Ann Coulter who has said as bad or worse things than Margaret Cho has. And based upon the books that Coulter pumps out, the face time she gets on conservative news shows and the way she is praised in conservative media, I'd consider her a much better representative of the conservative side than Margaret Cho is of the liberal one.
Don't even make me get started on the stuff Ann Coulter has unapologetically said or written. It makes Margaret Cho look like George Will.
The bible is full of ludicrous passages... writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world:
While I would disagree with your assessment of the Bible being "full of ludicrous passages," sadly, you are correct in stating that writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress people. Certainly, that is not my intent. I'm not about punishing you or anyone else. But, you are assuming that everyone will automatically accept the homosexual as a minority to be equated with those of a minority race or gender. May I ask, what you base "right and wrong" upon?
but why pick on homosexuality... why not other supposedly "wrong" choices being made everyday by millions of people? And, why is homosexuality wrong? Homosexuality IS NOT a conscious choice.
I do not "pick on homosexuality" as you put it. The majority of my posts are NOT about homosexuality. However, there have been some outside influences driving this topic over the past several weeks, including an online acquaintance with other blogs that are "Pro-Gay Rights." Listen. I'm not saying that those who are homosexual should be treated with any less respect or mistreated or harmed in any way. Please don't misunderstand my intent. I would add that many disagree with your assessment that "homosexuality IS NOT a conscious choice." This is all misinformation. I would just as quickly tell you that sex outside of marriage is wrong, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. That I simply base my belief of Right and Wrong on God and his Word does not necessarily mean I am a hateful bigot.
You bring up an interesting point about context.....here are some verses....can you explain what these mean if they don't mean homosexuality?
"(men)Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."Leviticus 18:22-23 Notice that these 2 verses fall one right after the other. I did not put them there. Today, this would be labeled as hate speech because homosexuality is being put in the same conversation as bestiality.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:18-27 All of this language falls in a passage speaking of all kinds of "evil, greed and depravity" (Romans 1:29) This is all within context. Now....to be fair.....if someone I was debating/having dialogue with was trying to convince me that any "evil, greed or depravity" was somehow now acceptable, and seeking societal and governmental recognition and acceptance, I would have the same reaction. While I certainly wouldn't use this to "harm" those who disagree with me, since, to do so would also be wrong, I certainly can and will use it when reasoning out right and wrong; good and evil.
"But we do see you linking to and praising Ann Coulter who has said as bad or worse things than Margaret Cho has."
I agree, Coulter could, perhaps tone it down. (The old "catch more flies with honey than vinegar" adage.) However, you would have to be more specific when stating that she has stated anything remotely like the vitriolic ramblings of Margaret Cho. I'm aware she (Coulter) can be harsh and opinionated, but have found nothing remotely close to the hatred that Margaret Cho has for Bush, Republicans and Christians. And, I guess you don't link to anyone who is harsh or opinionated? :-)
Mike... to answer your question about what I believe your quotes to interpret to, I have provided an excerpt from a website I found.
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws, and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most people don't know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning "complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions. Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself." Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible and are demanded equally with all the others.
Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.
Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.
This was taken from: http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#Leviticus18:22
"You could have chosen anyone to stand by you in this life, but you chose who you chose... but why? I guarantee it was not a clear cut choice made from pure reason and logic, but the love and desire you felt in your heart... the same as any other human being."
I'm not stating we have to completely separate feelings from logic. Neither am I telling you that feelings are not important nor valid. However, I have other desires and feelings that I have to contain and control. When someone cuts me off in traffic, for example (a huge pet peeve of mine) in my mind I want to force them off the road, I want to yell profanities, I want to scream at the top of my lungs....but I don't. Why not? Because simply because I feel that way doesn't necessarily imply that I am right to act upon that emotion.
May I ask, what you base "right and wrong" upon?
I base my concept of right and wrong on basic morals... the basic human rights that everyone should be included and entitled to. Treating others as I would want them to treat me. The idea that harming others in any way (physically, mentally) is wrong. You do not need a GOD to be good and do right.
Mike, you can't be serious about Ann Coulter not spewing hatred. The woman advocates murder, the use of physical violence, the repression of women, fascism, and the reinforcement religious stereotypes. "Tone down" would be the understatement of the year.
- We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - National Review "We should invade their countries." (http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml) September 13, 2001
- "I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly." - MSNBC March 22, 1997.
- "When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." - at the Conservative Political Action Conference (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031104A.shtml) February 26, 2002.
- "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0ICQ/2002_August_26/94386624/p6/article.jhtml) August 26, 2002.
- "Of course I regret [the previous quote]. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'" - in a rightwingnews.com interview (http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/anncoulter.php) June 26, 2003.
- "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." - [13] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,956452,00.html) May 17, 2003.
- "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.
- "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." - MSNBC February 8, 1997.
- "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')". - from her column (at townhall.com) (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040304.shtml)March 4, 2004.
Levitical response.
Here is some information regarding your post. In light of sound Biblical and hermeneutical interpretation, I offer the following:
Leviticus 18 and 20
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)
Although these prohibitions explicitly condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God, we are told that they are not relevant today. Why? First, the pro-homosexual interpretation is that since these condemnations are contained in the "Holiness Code" of Israel, they were only applicable to ancient Israelites, to keep them separate from the pagan practices of their neighboring tribes.27
Second, parts of this code are not kept today. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."28
Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).
Other prohibitions listed in Leviticus include incest and adultery (Lev. 18:6ff; 20:10). Were these too only condemned because of the Canaanites? To argue in this fashion is dishonest and denies that there are eternal moral absolutes.
What of the fact that other parts of the Holiness Code in Leviticus are not kept today? Again, the answer is simple. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.
"I was, I think, quite clear in saying that I not only believe that my sexual orientation is right, but that it is blessed.
How so? Where would you say the Bible or God "blesses" the homosexual relationship?
"I base my concept of right and wrong on basic morals... the basic human rights that everyone should be included and entitled to. Treating others as I would want them to treat me. The idea that harming others in any way (physically, mentally) is wrong. You do not need a GOD to be good and do right."
Basic morals.....where do those come from.....what if yours are different from mine...who wins? Just curious.....and who says we are entitled to human rights? Where does this idea come from? How can we agree on a "set of morals" you term as basic if our "opinions of right and wrong" differ?
You have failed to provide proof of where in the bible it states homosexuality is wrong. It does not state that anywhere... only through narrowminded interpretations does one come to that conclusion. And, let us question the reliability of the bible. It has been written by many people and translated numerous times. One has to assume that, that alone challenges its validity to begin with.
"Mike, you can't be serious about Ann Coulter not spewing hatred. The woman advocates murder, the use of physical violence, the repression of women, fascism, and the reinforcement religious stereotypes. "Tone down" would be the understatement of the year."
Agreed.....sounds pretty hateful....I'm removing her link from my site.....
"You have failed to provide proof of where in the bible it states homosexuality is wrong. It does not state that anywhere... only through narrowminded interpretations does one come to that conclusion. And, let us question the reliability of the bible. It has been written by many people and translated numerous times. One has to assume that, that alone challenges its validity to begin with."
If the above Bible references aren't proof, I don't know what is. There are only 4 or 5 passages that deal with homosexuality to begin with. Secondly, you will find that any book written in a different language has need to be "interpreted" or "translated." Correct? You will also find that the translations today are right in line with the oldest manuscripts available of the Bible. Perhaps you can look up "Dead Sea Scrolls" on Google for more information or here is a link for you.
"You see, Mike, this isn't an academic exercise for some of us. This isn't just some fun opportunity to troll the web for juicy quotes, taken out of context to post in our blog to "prove" our opinions. This is indeed about life and death."
I think you greatly misunderstand my intention. I'm not here simply for "academic exercise." I don't troll the web for juicy quotes...to the contrary, my acquaintance with Ryan Dunn goes back to Andy, from eleventh-avenue-south.com, trolling for "juicy quotes" as you would call them and picking me from a list on Technorati. This is how I met Ryan. From time to time I go back and view Ryan's blog. This is the first time I've taken anything back to my blog from there. I think, hope at least, that Ryan would be able to tell you that I'm not just a "bigoted homophobe" who is spewing hate. And I'm not just here to "spew my opinion." I can certainly disagree with you without being "disagreeable." You made the statement that your homosexuality was "blessed." I was simply asking why you state this. I agree with you. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast! I rejoice with you that you know the Savior. And I pray for you, as I pray for myself, that He continues to "prune" the sin and dross out of my life to make me more like Him. Here is an article I found to be interesting on the "Gay Christian" Gay Christianity
"My question is this: What caliber rifle will you be using to thin out the herd of homosexuals as proscribed by Lev. 20:13? I notice how conveniently you avoided that point. If you actually believe what you say you believe, where is the courage of your convictions?"
My convictions lie, not solely in Leviticus, but are based on the corpus of Scripture. If you'll read the post above pertaining to interpretation of Leviticus, perhaps it will shed some more light.
"Hence the Lev 20:13 quote. (To which you still do not respond. It's OK to say you don't know how to respond to it. At least it's honest. In your position, I'd have no idea how to reconcile it either.)"
Actually I referred you to the article I posted above, but, will reiterate. I think anyone would be wrong to base all of their theology or belief solely on this passage in Leviticus. However, I will not just ignore certain scriptures because they are difficult or unpopular. While I do not profess to know everything there is to know about God, and the Bible. I do try to do my best to live by its standards. Pertaining to Leviticus, I do realize there is a difference between commands of a dietary and purification nature (which were "abolished" for lack of a better term) by the New Testament Covenant via Jesus Christ. The moral laws, or code, if you prefer, however, were not. Jesus came to fulfill the law, in that it was weak. The law was given, and we cannot keep it....that's where Christ comes in. As such, moral codes such as "murder, incest, bestiality, etc" still stand today. I think we are in agreement that this list is a list of things that are "wrong." Therefore, in the NT covenant, I don't sacrifice babies....I don't even sacrifice animals.....I don't rely on a high priest.....I don't "stone my children when they are dishonoring to their mother and father.....and I don't kill a homosexual because of his acts. However, as a Christian (as you know) we have been commissioned to "go and make disciples..." This involves speaking the Truth, whether one likes it or not. Again, we are in agreement....I do not like to be told I'm wrong either....it's human nature, isn't it?
"Do you think I haven't already read everything by him and his NARTH friends? It isn't interesting ... it's just self-loating, ex-gay tripe. You don't really believe I'm going to be persuaded by that hack do you?"
I don't know what you've read and what you haven't. I only know what I've read. Is Joe being disingenuous? You may know something about him I do not.
"You say, "I'm not here simply for 'academic exercise.'" What was your post for, then? In your own words it was to expose, "The truth ... that it really doesn't matter to them whatsoever whether it is right or wrong." Which is, I hope you see now, incorrect."
I would say standing for truth is, in fact, more than mere "academic exercise." Either we have the truth or we don't. And if we do, it is worth standing up for.
Would you agree that the other list of things we've mentioned from Leviticus (bestiality, incest, et. al.) are "wrong?"
Not surprisingly, you too, will refuse to answer this question. The reason this so-called "debate" never "goes anywhere" as you say, is because there is not intellectual honesty when it gets to this part of the debate. Alas, it seems this too will have to go unanswered.....though I wonder, can you state why it offends you? What is there that is so offensive between comparing the arguments? How can there ever be anything that offends if there is no right and wrong????
At one time or another did someone say that they did not believe in right and wrong? I can't find anywhere in your posts (any of them) where somone specifically denied there to be a true right and a true wrong. You continuously imply though, that we (everyone else) must not believe in a right and wrong if we do not believe that homosexuality is is a sin. I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I am fully homosexual (and married), but I do believe in right and wrong.
My post above intended to say that I am fully heterosexual...
I don't intend to insult you, Alan, I'm just looking at this thread and this is where it always "hangs up" so to speak. So, in essence, I'm agreeing with you. It often is useless, because we never get past this point. I know the usual argument is that you are offended at my implication that bestiality, incest and homosexuality are similar.....please understand, for argument's sake, I'm not trying to insult you, but merely pointing out that the fact you state that bestiality and incest are wrong begins to form a difficult problem for you to overcome. I know you've heard this before......Why should homosexuality be "accepted" when based on even your interpretation of right and wrong, one who would desire to be married to their sister, brother or, perhaps their dog, would be denied? As ludicrous as I know you think this sounds, can you not at least see the similarity in arguments? What makes things like bestiality and incest wrong, in your eyes, whereas something like homosexuality is not?
At first glance, and after reading through the link you provided, Romans 1:26-28 come to mind as well. (remember, the corpus of scripture). I will reply in detail as soon as I am able....
Your last post was a lot of information given I haven't yet replied to your interpretation of Leviticus. I will post more on that later, but, as I hope you would agree, it is important that the Bible be interpreted accurately.
Secondly....your point about "relating to gay people" is a good point. I do, in fact, on a daily basis interact and speak and have friendships with gay people. And we have never even had a debate. However, we are in the blogosphere......do you really expect on a blog to have the same kind of interaction and relationships? While it is important to remain civil, and believe we have done so....another important point is to accurately represent what the Bible says. If you're weary of what you term "pointless debate" you are certainly free to stop any time....
I hate to sound trite here, but doesn't this whole debate about "accurately representing" what the Bible says take God or whatever right out of the equation and leave that representation in the hands of mortal men? It's not God who has represented anything, it's Biblical scholars and translators who have.
I hate to sound trite here, but doesn't this whole debate about "accurately representing" what the Bible says take God or whatever right out of the equation and leave that representation in the hands of mortal men? It's not God who has represented anything, it's Biblical scholars and translators who have.
Alan has stated that he is a Christian, and that what the Bible deems as right and wrong are, in fact, important to him. Therefore, this being the case, it would seem that we would want to ensure that the interpretation is correct. You'll find, through church tradition and through archaeological evidence such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Bible has not "changed" over time, but, in fact as compared to the earliest manuscripts available, has remained the same since it was written. This would all, of course, hinge on your view of God. Christianity believes God gave us His Word via the Bible and has preserved it for us. I realize you might disagree with this, and therefore you don't have any interest in following its teachings. But, in the context of this thread, Alan has stated he does.
I will end with this. The Bible is of no "private interpretation" it tells us so in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Scholars throughout the centuries have delved into the depths of Scripture and found the treasures that God has left for us to find in His Word. This being said, the problem that has plagued Christianity for centuries is that we, as sinners, come to the Word seeking to "defend" our position and prove our own point. Just as it is wrong for the KKK or the Nazi Regime or the Crusaders to wrest scripture from context and apply it to their presuppositions, so too, it is wrong for me to come with a presupposition to the Bible and superimpose it on a passage to make it fit my argument. I fear that is what is being done here when we take a passage like we have been discussing in Leviticus, and instead of reading it for what it says, we try to make it say something completely different merely to back up our argument. The problem with this is, that as a Christian, I can use this method of Biblical interpretation to give creedence to just about anything, and therefore, can seek to justify almost everything. That is not my intent, and I believe that if a homosexual were honestly reading passages such as these for the 1st time to see honestly what the Bible is saying, the conclusions he/she would arrive at would be the same as those that are reached by nearly all Biblical scholars.
While you certainly have your right to disagree with "having to live your life by the Bible." It is not our right to make the Bible say something it does not, nor to remove the meaning of or very warnings and teachings that it gives us. I will be praying for you, Alan, and I ask that you pray for me.
(comments on this particular post will be disabled....thanks for your input and time!)
Just a few quotes more from those who push the Gay Agenda....lest you think I made anything up...
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all."(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…"
<< Home