News-Record.com

Dear Diana,

Thanks for your letter. However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15.19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Leviticus 1.9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19.27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19.19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20.14)

11. My pro-life neighbors tell me it's the same as murder for a woman to have an abortion because David said to God, "You knitted me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13; see also Psalm 51:5; 139:13; Luke 1:44), and that it's against God's law to harm an unborn child (Exod. 21:22-23). The verses in Psalms and Luke just say that babies are formed in the womb and born in sin. And Exodus only says: "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye," etc. God's own word is good enough for me. If you kill a woman, that's murder and is punishable by death, but if you cause a miscarriage (abortion in medical terminology), that only calls for a fine. And if the woman and her husband have no objection (as of course they wouldn't in the case of a voluntary abortion), then the Bible says there's no reason for punishment at all. So am I obligated to stone these "pro-life" sinners to death myself, for breaking the commandment against bearing false witness by perverting the very word of God Almighty? Should I stone these heretics? I really hate to make such a mess, unless you think some activist judge might let these infidels off light with only death by lethal injection.

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours truly,
Denzien

P.S. I look forward to your answers because there are a number of other issues that I'd like to get settled as soon as you've enlightened me on these ... Thanks again.

AWESOME, Denzien. TOTALLY AWESOME!!

Denzien:

If you have that much knowledge of the Old Testament, then surely you have read the New Testament, where it says repeatedly that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross freed the Jews from the law. Though they chose to reject such freedom and live under the old covenant, this is still the covenant God gave them when he sent his son.

As for me, an Anglo-Saxon, and thus not a Jew, I was never subjected to the Law of Moses, in fact I was excluded from it and doomed to never know the power and wonder of my creator.

However, when God sent his son, Jesus, to live among men as men, and Jesus chose to willingly sacrifice himself for man, I became eligible for God's salvation.

You too are eligible for such a great gift. I would suggest the Gospel of John, Romans, Ephesians and 2 Peter as a crash course in how wonderful such a gift is.

The main point is to remember, that you are not subject to the Law of Moses. Live free in Christ.

Hi Jeffrey,

I appreciate your concern. However, I find that those who cite the Old Testament as a basis for hate and exclusion ought to receive the fullest smackdown applicable under the Old Testament. While I am certainly not a Biblical scholar (Erisian philosophy teaches us that we are only to read in the dark), I feel the need to point out hypocrisy when it appears.

I feel that using Jesus' words in the New Testament into a screed of hatred and judgement is an abberation, and would be an affront to Jesus himself. Remember, Jesus was a friend to the weakest and poorest and the despised.

To follow in his image, we should be kind and charitable to our fellow sinners, for not one of us is without sin.

The title of this LTE has nothing to do with the content of the letter. Wonder who decided to put such a misconstrued title on this piece. Could it be that it was so title just to bring out the atheist from the wood work again?

7. Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

I will take time to answer this since it will also reflect on how you understand things.
The sight that this refers too is not the physical sight of man but the spiritual sight. Many are blinded by the things of the flesh and can not see the things of a spiritual nature. So no you do not need glasses, you just need to have your spiritual eyesight checked and when you understand the things of God then you will better understand His word. Until then you will remain blind.

MrP, just a thought/reflection; where does Lev. 21.20 mention spiritual sight? To say that takes away from the literal reading and that is supposedly not allowed by those who say that homosexuality is sin, from the reading that I find that are used to say such.

Jeffrey, if as an Anglo-Saxon (non-Jew) you are excluded from the Law, then I would sumise from that that all non-Jewish homosexuals are also excluded, is that what I hear being said in that statement? Therefore, it is only the Jewis homosexuals that are an abomination? Whatever an abomination is, I never had that word in spelling class as a child in school.

Again, as noted so many times previously (in other blogs regarding this issue), the issue is at an impasse. The impasse deals with two issues; 1)interpretation of scripture, and 2) determining whether or not homosexuality is not/is sin. This letter writer seems to believe it is, what others believe it is not. Each believes such for their own reasoning.

If only the people would look at waht the others have to say before totally disregarding their points. I believe that homosexuality is not sin, God created each person with the "wiring" that is there. For me to say that one person's "wiring" is wrong would be like me saying one race of people is wrong (i.e., greater than another).

I too once believed that homosexuality was sin. However, after study of scripture and research, God showed me that I was not reading scripture as it was meant. By saying that one of God's creations was wrong, was exactly like Peter saying that one type of animal was unclean (Acts 11.1-18). Therefore, to me, NOTHING is unclean nor unfit for use by God!

Shalom

OK, fine, mrproduce. You read it your way, I'll read it mine. You stand at 1 for 11.

Got any reasons why retail employees working tomorrow should be allowed to live?

Darryl:

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Christ's sacrifice allowed me, a non-Jew, to know the greatness of God and to have eternal life. It has nothing to do with same sex relationships, which are clearly illogical and immoral by any scientific or religious definition.

As you point out, discussion of the same sex issue is moot. Some are chosing to redefine morality from a humanistic/relative point of view to include same sex relationships as acceptable behavior in society. I am not a subscriber to that view point.

I have been thinking though. For argument's sake, let's stipulate that at some point in the future homosexuals are allowed to marry and go about in public and on television and in general readerhip magazines and throughout mainstream media exhibiting the traits of their relationships (men kissing men, women kissing women, etc.)Let's also stipulate that such behvior becomes socially acceptable and all churches and schools smile upon such relationships in public, so that two men posing as a couple in church or two boys dating each other and holding hands and trading class rings and letter jackets in high school is just as normal and mundane as Tom and Jane in the 1950s. As the parent of a young child, how does one explain such behavior to him? What would be the pc explanation for a parent to give a child to process such?

I would like for those in the pro-same sex relationship camp to give me some guidelines.

jeffrey,

Ill bite. Last time I checked, homosexuals do hold hands and kiss in public, they have children who attend public schools and have stable, monagamous relationships. Denying them the right to marry can do nothing to stop this. As far as explaining it to children.....its easy, you tell them they are two people who love each other, nothing more or less is needed (when children ask you do not have to get into the sexual aspect of things, I mean you dont do that when you explain mommy loving daddy)Telling a child this will not make him/her gay, in fact the children who have asked me are usually pretty blase about the whole thing, as they are encountering lots of things in thier lives that are different from themselves and thier own families each day. Most say OK and move on. I work with young children and they encounter classmates with two mommies or daddies and they naturally ask questions. It is not my job to interject opinion one way or the other,so I simply offer what is fact, the same way that I do when someone asks why someone only has one mommy or daddy, or 2 of each, etc. etc. Whether you accept it or not, and with or without homosexuals being able to marry, children are going to ask questions about it. Teachers and Parents (especially) have to have answers for those questions.

K:

Thanks for the guidelines.

So if I am revolted by the site of two men/women kissing and chose to tell my child that they are perverted, what does that make me? Am I the one who is abberant?

BTW, how is it that a homosexual couple can have children?

Also, let's go one step further. Let's stiplulate that we all turn to same sex relationships to fulfill the curiosity. What happens to society then? Someone take it to its logical conclusion for me.

If we all become gay, does gay lose its lustre? Will striaght become vogue after 50 years?

Is redefining morality and the common denominator of human tradition worth appeasing a minority of individuals? Has it ever been?

I just want to see this discussion move past Jesus and Baptist and Tony Morton to consequences and impact on society of the actions/inaction we are discussing vis a vis accepting same sex relationships as legitimate social behavior that is not to be shunned by society.

Hey Mark - don't be too impressed by Denzien. Google the following and let me know how many hits you get: "I would like to sell my daughter into slavery."

Don't think Dezien actually had the brain power to come up with all of those comments alone. There are over 18,000 websites that have a copy of this same response.

Here's one if you're interested:

http://hotflashreport.blogspot.com/2004/11/dear-president-bush.html

Denzien - the least you can do is not sign your name to these comments since they aren't yours. Typical liberal, taking credit for everyone else's work.

Jeffrey - don't be concerned about Denzien's knowledge of the Old Testament. You know a good card-carrying liberal has more dust on their Bible than I-40 has potholes. As you can see above, the only knowledged possessed by Denzien comes from the leftist websites he/she spends the day surfing.

Jeffrey, one is asking the opposite question posed by Denzien. Yet, those questions are passed off as no longer necessary.

And do you honestly beleive that the entire population could be gay? Do you honestly belive that God would create a society that could not reproduce?

As for not understanding my question in the previous post; in reference to your post, it was stated, "As for me, an Anglo-Saxon, and thus not a Jew, I was never subjected to the Law of Moses, in fact I was excluded from it and doomed to never know the power and wonder of my creator."

If no one save the Jews were subjected to the Law of Moses (not really Moses' law however), then what is listed there is not for you as an Anglo-Saxon. I am only reading the words posted.

As a Christian, I am of the Grace belief. Jesus the Christ has fulfilled the Law and therefore NO ONE is under it any longer. Therefore, regrading the Law, ALL are removed from it through Jesus the Christ.

However, I find one other point made to be troubling; "Let's also stipulate that such behvior becomes socially acceptable and all churches and schools smile upon such relationships in public,....." I have yet to see any GLBT group that is asking for ANY church to accept them! However, these same people are tired of the relentless pursuit of GLBT by religious groups. GLBT people are not asking for church's to accept them.

They are fighting for the right to co-exist in this country with everyone else and to be extended the same rights and privileges as other couples (heterosexual). Consider this, states recognize the "common law marriage" of a heterosexual couple who live together for sometimes as few as seven (7) years. And further, that marriage is recognized by other states! Where is the uproar regarding this? Why no "disfellowshipping" of these congregants?

These are the tings that GLBT people are seeking! JUSTICE! NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, NOTHING ELSE!

Shalom

Darryl:

You are right in that as an Anglo-Saxon I was never subjected to the laws of the Old Testament. That was my point in replying to Denzy's post, which it now seems was a sham to begin with.

However, I must differ with you on the conclusion of your last post. It seems to me that homosexuals have been coexisting for all of creation, hidden within society, in the privacy of their own worlds. I don't recall anyone seeking to eradciate their practices in recent American history.

I do recall the issue surfacing in pop culture, with MTV and other "hip" shows having openly gay themes, and shows such as "Seinfeld" dedicating an entire episode to "not that there is anything wrong with that." Next came "don't ask, don't tell" in the military, and more openly gay themes in the me-90's.

As the millenium approached and dawned, we now have homosexuals demanding the right to "marry", despite the fact that it contravenes the definition of the word and undermines the very purpose of the tradition.

Next, they want to label as hateful religious organization who refuse to accept or publicly condone/tolerate same sex practices which tradition tells us are unnatural, illogical and immoral. Episcopals and Methodists are pushed from within to decree on the subject and other denomination feel the need to make their stance clear. Simple politics.

Not all of us are satisfied to look on and say "Isn't that nice" or "I think its so cool that he is gay" or "She should be admired for accepting who she is. Isn't she strong."

When homosexuals realize that an overwhelming majority of adults in this country, and I dare say all of creation, will not accept the legitimization of same sex practices, and people who promote homosexuality go back to being satisfied with quiet tolerance of private habits, the issue will be solved.

The nail that raises its head will be hammered down.

As they say in English,

Peace.

Aww, Ezekiel. You're absolutely right. I certainly was not raised a Christian, held state office in the Episcopal church, and have read the Bible more than most Christians I know.

I did indeed cut and paste. That I did makes the points contained therein any less valid.

I have only seen one post to counter them.

Care to take them on, Ezekiel, or would you like to continue with some more name calling?

Oh, and to say that "You know a good card-carrying liberal has more dust on their Bible than I-40 has potholes." not only singles you out as a poor purveyor of metaphors, but rather ignorant of the state of the nation and of Christianity- In making statements like that, you are certainly not doing your Christian brethren justice, much less what Jesus would suggest.

So, back to my previous question: Any good Biblical reasons why retail workers tomorrow should not be put to death?

jeffrey,

Homosexual couples can easily have children:

Gay men hire surrogattes. Lesbian couples visit the sperm bank. Many adopt as a single parent. They go to the mall, out to dinner and send thier children to the same schools you or I do. This has been going on for years. I cannot believe that you have never encountered it. Or maybe that just proves that the world will not implode if gay people live the same lives as you or I do. I have encountered many of these families in my work with children. They live the same lives as other families. They work, go to the park and the movies, worry about thier children, and love them just as much. The kids are well adjusted. Most four, five and six year olds care more about the toy they have to share or playing than who sombodies parents are. Obviously they notice at some point, but they care a whole lot less than adults too. The only negative comments I have ever heard have obviously come from the adult in the child's life (ie my dad says your moms are going to hell) Other comments I have heard...Thats cool, when one mommy cannot play with you, the other one can.
As far as teaching your children that it repulses you.....that is your right as that child's parent. I disagree, but as an educator I have to tread a fine line between presenting what is fact (i.e., little susie has two mommies) and what is my opinion (Most people are straight, some are gay, that is the way it has been for centuries and I dont think there is anything wrong with it just because it is different from you or I). That being said, if your child came into the classroom and started tormenting little susie and said things that made her upset, I would intervene and tell your child (politely) that it was her/his fathers opinion and not everyone thinks it is wrong. (again I would not say how I felt regarding the subject....partly because I wouldnt want to get fired because some people dont want to even acknowledge homosexual couples and thier children (regardless of how they feel about the issue) and because as much as I disagree with you, it is a parents perrogative to raise thier children with the moral code they believe to be true)

Jeffrey, if the posting was a sham, why was it made; To incite indifference? Or was it lack of knowledge that caused it to be written?

I do not understand this comment, "However, I must differ with you on the conclusion of your last post. It seems to me that homosexuals have been coexisting for all of creation, hidden within society, in the privacy of their own worlds. I don't recall anyone seeking to eradciate their practices in recent American history." I do not find me making that conclusion. I am of the belief that is made in the quoted comment aforementioned.

My question is thus, what is wrong with "pop culture" bringing to "light" something that has been around since creation? Is that not what progression does for a society/culture?

Ok, homosexuals want to marry. Now the religious issue goes away and we play with the semantic of the word "marry." What would be a suitable word for the union/joining together of two people of same gender?

While some GLBT people do label religious groups "hateful" that fail to FULLY recognize them as fellow humans who are can ALSO be people of faith, that is not every GLBT person. GLBT people are like the rest of society, full of extremes. Try to not lump all into a category just because an extreme receives more media attention than another. On that note, I know of two couples who have been together for a combined 40+ years. There was a third, however, one of those partners died. They had been together 18 years when the one died.

No one, that I know of, is asking for EVERYONE to say homosexuality is "nice." However, it would be both civil AND human to treat GLBT people with the respect that is deserved a fellow human being. Is that too much to ask?

Jeffrey, to use the logic of "people who promote homosexuality go back to being satisfied with quiet tolerance of private habits, the issue will be solved." is equal to the "Separate but equal" philosophy uses for years in this country regarding race. That is the philosophy of "keep then in their place and all is well!"

How about we do that with the Catholics? Muslims? Hispanics? The list could go on and on. Where is the logic and rational reasoning in that philosophy?

As for, "The nail that raises its head will be hammered down." Yes, that has been attempted many times throughout history. Martin Luther was a nail to the Catholic Church. Yet, look at the end result. Slavery/Civil Rights was a nail, yet look what has happened. British colonization was a nail, yet look what happened. Need I offer any other "nails" for the point to be made?

Shalom

For those who don't understand what I wrote is evident that you do not have spiritual sight.(an understanding of the holy scripture and it is not given by man or through man in theology books but through the Holy Spirit.)

AS far as the eye being literal goes. Read through out the scripture, both new and old testament and you will see that in most occasions it refers to spiritual sight. For example the scripture that refers to the "beam" in the eye. Now that is certainly a metaphor for the "sin or wrong in ones own life, eye, rather than explicit as to a beam in the eye which would be rather impossible.

For Mr 1- 11 I will explain one more for you. The odor of the bull on the alter. That was a blood sacrifice, , offered by the children of Israel . When Jesus Christ came he made the final blood sacrifice ever necessary for the atonement of sin thus making the blood sacrifice and burnt offering unnecessary. Jesus said I came to fulfill the law not to destroy the law. The remainder of your challenges, are just as easily put aside as this one.
One must look at the content and the context of what is written before making any kind of blank statement as you have attempted to make. All that you have written about from the Old Testament is explained in the New. What was to remain, remained that which was no longer necessary, such as the sacrifice, no longer remains for it was taken care of , covered by the blood of Jesus.
One other, causing a miscarriage as it was put in the scriptural context you used is NOT the same as the medical term for abortion. It is a miscarriage caused by mischief or by an attempt to do harm to the mother. Read the entire book in context and do some cross reference which it appears you should be able to do. Biblegateway.com can offer this is you don not have a cross-reference Bible.
Now have a good evening

I do know that there are other scriptures that refer to seeing with our physical eyes but one must always take into context as to how it is being used and spoken.

If you refer to someone as to having a cob up their rear, you are not referring to an actual cob but a condition or attitude the person is in. Hate to use something so secular to explain the scripture but then those who don't understand the scripture can often times understand a parable which is why Jesus often spoke in parables to those who came to listen. They too had no understanding of the spiritual but through his revealing such through secular stories which they would recognize they were able to slowly understand the spiritual meanings

Darryl:

A suitable word for the union/joining of two people of the same gender, in my view, would be illogical, immoral or unnatural.

How did I know you would come at me with the Civil Rights argument? I cannot respond to that because I cannot undo 400 years of European/American history.

So, as I surmised, the only recourse I have in this irrational age is to accept open homosexuality in my face, on TV, in the magazines I subscribe to, on my home page on the internet, everywhere around me and be satisfied with it.

I have to live knowing who knows what type of redefined morality will take place if I die tomorrow and leave my seven-month old son to learn the ways of the world.

I only participate in this discussion because the concept of homosexuality to me is foreign and abhorent, not because I have been taught that, but because that is my "wiring", my inlcination as a human being. It is something I see as having no basis in nature, logic or morality. Yet we now are on the path to defining it in society as acceptable behavior.

Let them have their marriages, let a sexual perversion be defined as normal. Why not? Christmas is bad. Homosexuals are good. Abortion is good. Volunteer soldier dying for their country is bad. An 18-year-old who shoots a trooper and a sheriff with an AK-47 deserves the death penalty, but his 17-year-old brother who takes the troopers service revolver and shoots both officers at point blank range does not deserve the death penalty.

I can only imagine what man will think of next.

Good night and good luck.

K:

Why would a homosexual want to raise a child if he/she does not believe/feel inclined to the natural process of creating/raising one?

ps. In my 35-years I have never seen a homosexual couple with a child outside of on television. As many friends have made clear to me, I am merely a white-boy from North Carolina. But being that I am from the fourth largest city of the 10th largest state of the fourth largest naiton in the world, I assume I have been exposed to a median cross-section of humanity.

Just because the process is unnatural to you does not mean that is unnatural to others. Wanting children is not something that is reserved soley for heterosexuals and in this day and age it is possible through science for someone to have children in a homosexual relationship. They can also adopt. And if you for one second think a child is better off growing up in foster care than being raised by one or two loving parents, then you are misinformed about children and what they need. Children are wonderful creatures, is it really hard for you to believe that homosexual couples would want to have a family too? Do you feel this way about single parents? Jeffrey, I highly doubt that as a 35 year old male, you have not encountered a homosexual couple with a child (whether you were aware of it or not). They dont wear signs on thier back, and they look just like everyone else. Greensboro is not the most diverse city around, and we are in the south, but c'mon, just because you haven't seen it does not mean it isnt here. I have at least one child of a same sex couple in one of my classes and the people I used to babysit for occassionally for are a lesbian couple with two little girls. As far as raising a child in the "natural way"... They raise thier children like a heterosexual couple. They feed and clothe them, read them bedtime stories, play games with them, worry about them and love them. They have good jobs and after being together for many years contacted a sperm bank and had a baby, and then another. They are great parents and have great kids. The oldest is now 5 and is a typical child. She likes the disney princesses and is talks about prince charming (so much for the idea that they will turn thier child gay, something that many critics suggest)Also, please explain what is "natural" because if you mean a heterosexual couple whose purpose is too breed children, then save it. Not everyone subscribes to that belief or a religious one and they have the same rights to procreating as you or I. Also, if that is your argument, how do you explain all the hetero couples who choose not to have kids? Are they unnatural too? What about the ones who cannot have children? You are so worried about homosexuals and children while there are Murderers,Rapists, wife beaters and child abusers who have children everyday. You should save your concern for those children, not the children of loving parents.

Denzien - since you claim to have read your Bible many times over, then take the time to turn back to the Book of Romans. Paul spends the first 8 chapters of that book explaining how the Old Testament law is now dead because of Jesus Christ. Every one of the things you cited in your plagiaristic post are from the Old Testament Mosaic Law.

The wonderful thing about faith in Jesus Christ is knowing that you don't have to adhere to the letters of the Mosaic Law. The grace of salvation has taken that away. This does not give us a right to sin, as you'll soon see in some scripture below.

I'm only listing several verses here, but I highly recommend Romans 6 and 7 to you.

Romans 6:1 & 2 - "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

Romans 6: 14 & 15 - "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Romans 7: 1-6 – “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”

So, as you can see, through faith in Jesus Christ, we are now dead to the law. Paul goes into detail in Romans to make sure the Jews understood that this did not make the law evil. The law had a purpose, to reveal sin. But Jesus Christ is the reason why retailers shouldn’t be put to death for working on Sunday, because of Him the law no longer stands in the way when it comes to salvation. I certainly don’t agree with them working on Sunday, which leads me to my next point…

You say I am ignorant to the state of the country and Christianity. You are wrong. The state of the country and the state of Christianity go hand in hand. Too many Christians sit in churches where they hear preachers saying that homosexuality is OK. Too many Christians sit in churches where they hear preachers saying abortion is OK. Too many Christians sit in churches where sinful lifestyles are not addressed. Too many Christians sit in churches and listen to a preacher who is living a sinful lifestyle (homosexual or otherwise). God will not bless churches or Christians who live contrary to what His Word says. This is why our nation is in the state it is in, ignorant of God’s ways. Too many Christians like to go out to eat and go shopping after church on Sunday, thus causing those retailers and restaurants to have people working on the Lord’s Day. Me, I make it a point not to go to those places on Sunday. If I go to those places after spending the day in God’s House, then I am condoning what they are doing. I make sure I have enough gas in the tank and enough food in the cabinet to last until Monday.

The Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. God did designed our bodies for procreation. Those two things alone make homosexuality very wrong. Do I condemn all homosexuals to hell? Absolutely not. I’ll pray for them, because their sin is no different than mine. Sin is sin, there are not varying degrees, and we are all called to repent and ask for forgiveness. We Christians must be careful not to ignore the beam in our eye because we’re focused on the mote in someone else’s eye (Matthew 7: 3-5).

As for name calling, the only thing I called you was a liberal. That is what you are, isn’t it? The opposite of conservative is liberal, and you certainly aren’t conservative. Care to expound on why you shouldn’t be called a liberal?

AWESOME,Ezekiel,TOTALLY AWESOME!! *grin*

And yet the impasse continues.....caused by disagreement on 1) Interpretation of scripture, and 2) whether homosexuality is not/is sin. Who will deliver us from this impasse?

Shalom

Ezekiel, NO ONE should be called names, period! Does that not violate the very commands of Jesus the Christ?

Shalom

1. Since Lev 25:44 is addressed to the Jews, it does not apply to you.

2. Since Ex 21:7 is addressed to the Jews, you have no need of it in your life.

3. Keep asking the women, Eventually you will find one with Serious PMS and we will read your obit in the news.

4. Burn a bull? Since you are not a Levite, you risk the wrath of God for attempting to play priest.

5. If you neighbor is not a Jew, it is no concern of yours since this was addressed to the Jews. If your neighbor is a Jew, his punishment is still no concern of yours.

6. Both are equally bad. Food poisoning from shell fish can be as dangerous as AIDS.

7. Again since you are not a Levite, you have nothing about which to be concerned.

8. How shall they die? Thats Gods decision, not yours to make. It says nothing about them being killed.

9. Unless you wear pigskin gloves, you have no reason to be concerned. I believe most footballs now are made of synthetic material.

10. Again, what does Jewish law have to do with you?

11. Nice try, but you know as well as I do that "abortion" is not a word found in the Bible.

Congrats! You've shown us you've mastered the skills of "copy and paste." :-)

Oops... the above post was addressed to the questions raised by Denzien.

The Levitical passages used to comdemn supposed homosexuals was also addressed to Jews, so does that mean that they do not apply to me an European/American Protestant?

Just wondering.

Shalom

Jeffrey, I am wondering what your home page on the internet is set to if, "....the only recourse I have in this irrational age is to accept open homosexuality in my face, on TV, in the magazines I subscribe to, on my home page on the internet, everywhere around me and be satisfied with it." Also, what magazine do you subscribe? What TV stations do you watch? And where do you live? I live in one of the three Triad cities and I do not see those homosexuality "in my face" in those venues in my city, etc.

Wow, you must really live in a very open city/society for that to be happening. If that is the case, then I can see why some of the feelings being expressed are so.

However, as I stated, the majority of GLBT people are only seeking to live their lives just like anyone else; to be able to enjoy live and the civil liberitites that other couples enjoy. If that is a crime, then the US Constitution is a farce and should be thrown out and a new Constitution be written.

Shalom

Daryl - Are you gay?

Darryl:

That would be the Triad RR home page and its lovely top story about George Michael marrying his lover which appeared all day once last week.

The magazine reference was to ESPN the magazine, which I cancelled, after two issues last month featured articles on a gay rugby club and Lisa Leslie being out and proud.

Then I was at the gym and the attendant was watching Dr. Phil at about 3 pm debate whether gay teens could be talked out of being gay.

That's just a list from the last month.

I cancelled my cable tv in April after the birth of my son because we made the decision that we were going to raise him in as natural an environment as possible, free of the influences of trash, I mean, pop culture.

I though I had rid my life of having to be subjected to talk of homosexuality, but then the magazine and the web page instances.

So you can see how I am perturbed after making a conscious decision to eliminate a source of garbage in my home, I find it still seeps its way in.

We believe in traditional values in this household, whose tradition descends from Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. I can't help who I am, Darryl, you know that.

Darryl:

The Levitical passages are part of the Old Testament addressed to the Jews.

Romans 1:24-32 on the other hand....

Mr. P: Go back and read Lev. 21:20 again. It is NOT talking about spiritual sight. It is indeed speaking of physical sight.

The LORD is speaking to Moses in this passage, giving him instructions for the sons of Aaron (the Levites, who are the priests). It says:

"16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 "Speak to Aaron, saying: 'No man of your descendants in succeeding generations, who has any defect, may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, 19 a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20 or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. 21 No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy; 23 only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profane My sanctuaries; for I the Lord sanctify them.'"

This passage is very clearly speaking of physical defects, which were not allowed in the priests who approached the altar. (See the Hebrew if you still are unsure.)

Spiritual sight IS a theme throughout the Bible, but in Lev. 21:20, it is physical sight that is being referenced.

And incidentally, this passage only applies to the Levitical priests, not ordinary folk. ;)

Jeffrey - I face the same problems that you do. I have a three year old son and an 8 month old son. I'm 32 years old, and it smacks me in the face how much this world and this nation has changed since I was a boy in school. 20 years ago, we wouldn't have been having this discussion, but thanks to the pop culture that you have referenced, our sons will be subject to immoral behavior day in and day out unless we as parents take control. I cancelled my ESPN the Magazine subscription early this year when they had an issue featuring naked athletes. All of the MTV channels have been blocked on my satellite.

If people like Darryl don't mind their kids being exposed to homesexuality, that's fine. But my children will grow up knowing it is contrary to the Word of God, that we need to pray for people like that but we don't have to accept their lifestyle.

This discussion (along with the one on teaching Darwinism in school) is exactly why neither one of my boys will set foot in a public school.

P.S. What happened to Denzien? I expected some type of response to my post regarding the law being dead, but I'm disappointed he hasn't shown back up to respond on this thread.

I believe it to be my responsibility as a parent to teach my children right from wrong. As best as I can interpret from the Bible and then also use my best judgement and prayer for items not specifically mentioned in the Bible.

I'm sure Darryl and others will teach their kids that homosexuality is okay and not condemned by God.

I will teach my children the opposite. I don't believe in stoning anyone. But I do believe that it is my responsiblity and right to take a stand to defend my family from the onslaught of immorality in any form.

Now, honestly, homosexuality isn't a big issue in my home. We do have a few homosexual friends (some friendships over 30 years in the making). All we ask, when they come to our house, is that they use discretion and are not overt about their relationship in front of our kids. Honestly, our friends have been 100% respectful in that regard.

The bigger issues in our home revolve around glorified violence, disrespect of persons, disrespect of God and His Holiness, sexual immorality etc.

I, like another writer, cancelled my expanded cable because I felt that many of the channels aired material that was an assault on my beliefs.

I do have the $10 per month cable just so I can stay up-to-date with current events. The major networks have, in the past, been more careful about what they will broadcast. Lately, it's hard to tell them apart from the cable channels.

If things don't improve, we'll probably cancel our 'cheap' cable as well.

I think the only language that many understand is money. If people put their money back in their pocket and stop supporting this trash on TV, I think we'd see a change.

I hate to bring down the tone of this highly enjoyable and indeed thought provoking debate, but i noticed a call for a move away from reglious reasons for/against gay marriage. I found this post on a facebook thread, and whilst it may seem silly, i think it makes good points in favour of gay marriage, and indeed in general.

01) Being gay is not natural. People always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's most large countries, like America and the UK only have one religion.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.