OT: Question for members of the religious right in here

[pk500]

The path that we take from here is upon each of us... if I want America to be different, then I need to start with what I can control - myself. I need to make sure of my foundation in all areas and then practice being the best citizen that I can be to support that foundation.

That's way more of a Libertarian principle than a GOP principle, Skid. Seriously. The GOP still thinks you can't handle moral issues by yourself, otherwise morality wouldn't have been a key political issue for Republican voters in this election. Libertarians do think you can take care of moral issues without government.

May I suggest a glance at www.lp.org/issues ?



Take care,
PK

[bdoughty]

krustylew,

Do we put homosexuals to death? There are plenty of contradictions in the bible. Here are a few anti-incest quips.

"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..."
Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...."
Leviticus 20:17


You take anything that was passed down this long and you are going to get your share of inaccuracies. For me it is about faith and a set of morals I was raised upon, not just about what was written in one book. I study the bible, I practice religion and I use a little bit of common sense.

[pk500]

>>>>>
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16


As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue in my love. John 15:9


He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 and then again in John 15:10


This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:12-13


But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good in them which despitefully use you and persecute you; Matthew 5:44
<<<<<<

Sorry, I missed the clauses in the above Bible verses that specified heterosexual love instead of homosexual love.

Out,
PK

[Teal]

Hm... I thought PK asked the question of the "religious right". Seems like lots more than that have opined. Oh well, we didn't exactly follow his rules for the electoral vote pool thread, either...

I'm guessing that I fall into that category, eh, Paul? At least by a very broad definition, anyway. I've read some stuff in here thus far that is par for the course, but it doesn't make it right necessarily. I'm the resident DSP chaplain, I suppose, being clergy and all, so I'll throw my hat into the ring and attempt to answer the question, while correcting some erroneous viewpoints about what the scriptures say, and how they say it.

First as to the question: Paul, it's not really a fair question. I would not have it either way, and both are preventable, in my studied opinion. There is absolutely no correlation between genes and homosexuality. If so, it would not be able to be helped. If it can't be helped, then God is a sick dude for "creating someone that way" and then labeling it as a sin, is He not?

As to the differences between the Old and New Testaments, you need only read a little while in the New Testament to find more similarities than differences. As to homosexuality, there's this in the New by the apostle Paul: Romans 1:21-27:"For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised."

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In 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."


So the New Testament calls a spade a spade just like the Old. Does that give those of us who believe the scripture the right to bash homosexuals? No, and that is where the passages that PK threw in come into play. We are to love them, not condemn them. We are not to condemn, but neither are we to condone. Ever heard "Hate the sin, love the sinner?" Many people quote it...very few practice it. Homosexuality is a sin-I can't make that go down any easier. The Book says what it says. But so are a litany of other things that are listed in the above passage a little later on. Tell me if this makes you squirm a little: "They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Tough words, eh? Quick poll- who in here is above any and all of these things? Me? I'm sure not a God-hater, or a murderer, but have I ever been arrogant? Yep. Have I ever gossiped? You bet.

Whenever we find ourselves feeling justifiably angry about someone's sin, we should be careful. We need to speak out against sin, but we must do so in a spirit of humility.

The church in Rome, to whom this letter was written, no doubt agreed with the litany of sins that were to be condemned. Imagine their surprise, then, when Paul turned the tables on them and declared "What are you scoffing at? You are just as bad!" Check it out: Romans 2:1: " You, therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things."

What am I saying in all of this? Two things: 1. Homosexuality is a sin, without doubt. 2. While the sin is a sin, and should be called as such, condemning the sinner is uncalled for. The homosexual is a person for which Christ died, and deserves every chance we can give them to fully understand and accept that fact.

While Christ died for all of us while we were still sinners, he is not now nor has he ever been content or intent on leaving us the way he finds us. Love can never, never be confused with tolerance. Oftentimes loving someone means we must do whatever it takes to rescue them from their own self demise. I will never tolerate my children taking either of the destructive paths that you mention, PK. I will do whatever it takes to rescue them, because I love them. But I will hate the sin that seeks to destroy them, and will seek to destroy it. My children deserve no less.

If that makes me a member of the "religious right", then so be it. It's only a label. The name Christian was originally given as a mocking label, too. I know this is long, but PK, I hope I've given you some insight into my feelings on the matter.

[skidmark]

So should I read this as saying that the bible approves of incest?

Genesis 19
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [1] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [2] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

Actually that passage points out a sad end to the end of Lot's life - a man who ended up in that precarious position because despite having a belief in God, he lived too close to sin. Notice how its pointing out the children are the father of the Moabites and the Ammonites - two nations that proved quite contentious with God's people throughout the OT.

The Bible account of homosexuality being sin is pointed out in Bdoughty's above post of the Levitical law, as well as other places. You brought up the Lot passage above... which follows his having to leave Sodom and Gomorra as it is being destroyed for its wickedness. We get the term Sodomites because of the people of this city and their proclivity to homosexual practices. To those who would claim that's OT and doesn't apply anymore, the NT doesn't look upon it kindly either. The NT in fact warns us that homosexuality will become more rampant as men continue to turn their backs on God:

Romans 1:21-27
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[pk500]

Teal:

Thanks for the insight. I respect your position.

But the fact that <b>many of us, from all different ends of the political spectrum</b>, are quoting The Bible to support political positions is pretty frightening, really. The Bible is a book of worship and prayer, not a political handbook.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

The path that we take from here is upon each of us... if I want America to be different, then I need to start with what I can control - myself. I need to make sure of my foundation in all areas and then practice being the best citizen that I can be to support that foundation.

That's way more of a Libertarian principle than a GOP principle, Skid. Seriously. The GOP still thinks you can't handle moral issues by yourself, otherwise morality wouldn't have been a key political issue for Republican voters in this election. Libertarians do think you can take care of moral issues without government.

May I suggest a glance at www.lp.org/issues ?



Take care,
PK

Well, officially its an American principle... and its one that our forefathers designed this nation to work upon. I love how much our goverment is setup to protect us from itself. Our forefathers saw how easily an empire could change with one evil generation in dictatorship and devised a system that helped to protect us from our own corrupt tendencies. I have seen the Libertarian platform, and agree with many of their ideals. I usually do run into a few problems with their canidate, but I open to whomever is the lesser evil of all eligible choices for any given election.

[XXXIV]

Quick question here, why exactly is homosexuality a sin? Is it written in the bible somewhere?

Bible taken from the Greek word Bivlio meaning book.

yeah I think it is.

I think its in the old testament . They say a man should not dress as a woman. ...punished by being taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death.
I read some cool stuff getting high on roadtrips outta state.

That is supposed to be interpreted to mean that homosexuality is a sin?

Anyone else have an answer to this question?

What do u want from me??
I was high

[Teal]

"The Bible is a book of worship and prayer, not a political handbook."



Absolutely. That's why I voted the way I did based in no way around the bible, but on the issues. Gay Marriage? Not on the ballot in my state. If it were, I would've voted my conscience, but it sure wouldn't have been my reason for going to the polls. But PK, the bible is also a book of instruction. Not in a "God told me to vote for Bush" sort of way, but as a handbook for living life, and for knowing the heart of God.