News-Record.com

Harold,

Why are you limiting sin to homosexuality? Are you trying to say this is a greater sin than the adultery that was going on in Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the multitude of others sins happening there?

Remember there is a Commandment against adultery. But I have never read one that said "Do not commit homosexuality".

I'm more than a little weary of self-rightous people using the Bible to justify their predjuice. If you are going to take a stand against sin, please include all sins as they are all displeasing to God.

If you are without sin, then and only then, do you cast the first stone.

Yvonne - you asked what I was thinking ...

Where the Scripture on Pedophilia?
Where the Scripture on Wife Beating?

It's divide and conquer - and politically it works, to the detriment of America.

Leviticus? I love how he selectively reads from it. Isn't this also the section of the bible that states men should not trim their beard hairs, should send their wives out of the home during their mentral cycle, and a variety of other bizarre and strange things? I have a funny felling that Harold does not live according to most of leviticuses other rules.

don't people like this letter writer just make you wanna run as fast as you can to join their church?

Tony,
All I would add is...and the Republican Party.

Bob, you almost said mental cycle. ("mentral cycle"). That's the way I read it at first and fell off my chair laughing.

As for this letter, at least he quoted some scripture. That's better than just shouting out personal views.

I do agree there are other sins but this was the one he chose to write about. It's called a topic. You can't write about everything in 200 words or less. Besides, there aren't a whole lot of groups running around trying to say that adultery, pedophilia and wife-beating are okay in the eyes of God.

Bob, good points about the other no-no's in Leviticus. I don't think Soddom and Gamorrah was destroyed because of beard hair, but I still get your point.

Actually, God changed substantially even during the biblical period. He began as El, one of several Canaanite tribal deities who had restricted and defined responsibilities; then he became Yahweh, a bloodthirsty Hebrew tribal deity with greater responsibilities which he never fulfilled very well but who was not, even in Jerusalem’s state cult temple, their sole deity .
He only achieved that status after the Babylonian captivity under priests and tyrants who established religious uniformity by force of arms and fanatical military dictators who slaughtered those of their own people who dared challenge state approved religion and philosophy.
These three divine incarnations were not particularly wise, moral, or powerful, though the faithful have made all sorts of lame excuses for them over the centuries, usually by blaming divine failure on the unfortunate people the deity (deities?) had sworn to protect - just as some people excuse today’s divine failures.
God gradually acquired the aspects of a loving father by the common era as he took on a more civilized, Euro-pagan character, but the faithful have never been able to make up their minds whether he is still the war and ruin-loving demon of the past as well, so we have moral leaders like the persistent liars Robertson and Falwell talking about both sets of characteristics at the same time as though there’s no contradiction.
Few of the faithful have Thomas Jefferson’s courage to search the Christian scriptures for the few genuine diamonds of Jesus’ moral wisdom scattered in the verbal dunghill of nonsense and mythology constructed by Paul or the disciple-trained Christ-propagandists.
That’s the central flaw in Harold’s argument. If you are uninformed enough to think biblical writings are inerrant or infallible, or whatever adjective your sect prefers, and those writings alone provide the guidance necessary for and relevant to modern life, then Harold just confirms your prejudices and writes reasonably enough about a fundamentally unreasonable pov.
If you are informed to any useful degree and have a pov that extends beyond the end of your nose, if you’re capable of thinking occasionally for yourself and deciding that some ancient superstitions might not always be the best examples to guide modern life, he’s pushing the same old-time religion of ignorance and superstition.
What Harold thinks is sin and how he wants to live his life doesn’t matter to me as long as he minds his own business. When he disguises his perverted thoughts in their Sunday best and parades them in public where decent people have little choice but be exposed to them, then anyone has a right to comment critically or supportively.

How do you KNOW that Soddom and Gamorrah were NOT destroyed over beard hair?

That vengeful God of old could have been set off by some little nuance of personal grooming.

As Judy Tenuta would say, "It could happen!"

"God changed substantially even during the biblical period."

Christopher: Are you saying God flip-flopped?

God voted 'Against' homosexuals, before he voted 'For' homosexuals!

That Old Testament God was one mean hombre'. From mixed bathing, beards, etc. that diety harbored some real anxieties.

I just have one question for Harold; How many cities/towns has he be in where the ENTIRE male population was gay/homosexual? As supposedly was Sodom and Gomorrah were.

I want to know so I can visit THAT TOWN!!

Shalom

Chris, your sweeping generalizations and your undiluted sarcasm really negate any valid point you might have about the bible. I am not offended by your views, I am offended by the simplistic reading you have given the gospel and the way you have twisted the bible in order to make your point. Try harder not to sneer to much in your next post!

Sweet pea, it ain't no Sodom or Gomorrah, but San Francisco is running a close third.

bob,
"Leviticus? I love how he selectively reads from it. Isn't this also the section of the bible that states men should not trim their beard hairs, should send their wives out of the home during their mentral cycle, and a variety of other bizarre and strange things? I have a funny felling that Harold does not live according to most of leviticuses other rules."

this individual is hoping that no one notices his flagrant misuse of scripture ( already noticed by the alert philpa ).

first the mention of trimming the beard (lev.21 in ref. to lev.19:27) this was an admonition not to practice idolatry.

secondly i assume he is referencing lev.15:19 when he states "send their wives out of the home during their mentral cycle". i am aware that interpretation is often in the heart of the beholder, but i personally have difficultiy reading into lev.15:19 that the woman is to be put out of the home - rather i see warning for the woman to be separated for seven days ( i don't see this as being booted out of the home ). personally when my wife has her monthly issue, i don't send her to a motel for seven day, i simply separate myself from her (i.e. have no sexual contact).
the very premise of bob's argument "I love how he selectively reads from it." - imo he is quilty of the EXACT same thing !

dd,
"How do you KNOW that Soddom and Gamorrah were NOT destroyed over beard hair?"

the answer is easy....the scripture says otherwise.

darryl,

you hinge your entire belief that homosexuality is ok in God sight on one word "all" found in gen.19:4. you being an ex seminary student should know to use a concordance. take an honest look at the word "all" in the o.t. and tell me if you believe it mean 'completely inclusive of '.

trying to use the above scripture with this one word just may trip you up................

Phl 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord [is] at hand.

have you personally let your moderation be known to ALL men. if not then are you fulfilling Gods plan for your life ? after all, all means all right ?

what you are saying is if you can't believe "ALL" the men in sodom and gomarrah were gay then homosexuality is ok. but what if just possibly the word "ALL" in gen.19:4 didn't mean every single individual (male), would you then concede that homosexuality is not ok in Gods sight?
to build a belief on one word in the scripture seems (imo) to be on a foundation made of sand just waiting to be washed away.

Buz, (as politely as I can be) since Dan is so inspired and transpired with the interpretation that scripture is given in your posts, wait for his return.

As some may already preceive, I DO NOT subscribe to a FUNDAMENTALIST interpretation to scripture or any other factor of Christian faith. The God of Christian faith is much larger than that and CANNOT be encapsulated in such a confined reasoning.

Seeking to encapsulate God in that manner seeks to put limits on an omniscient and omnipresent diety. It cannot be both ways with the God of Christianity; the God of Christian faith is either
omniscient and omnipresent OR encapsulated.

Shalom

darryl,
i don't believe you answered my question but thanks for taking time to reply. but i still at a loss to know where you got your information concerning God and His paln ?

Buz,
God is ominpotent, and omnipresent. You want to place him/her in a box that fits your belief system, not realizing that God is "that which nothing greater can be conceived". That IS the point. Darryl is being very nice to you, as some would just come out and call you an idiot. Oh, and before you attack me, I am NOT calling you one--as I believe you are sincere in your beliefs.