NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not as well read in the scripture as I should be. Is there anywhere where jesus actually says being gay is wrong? I was under the impression that that was a church thing from the middle ages but a super-christian diesagrees with me.

I'm not as well read in the scripture as I should be. Is there anywhere where jesus actually says being gay is wrong?
Where Jesus says it? Not as far as I know.

I'm not as well read in the scripture as I should be. Is there anywhere where jesus actually says being gay is wrong? I was under the impression that that was a church thing from the middle ages but a super-christian diesagrees with me.Jesus mentions that Homosexuality is a Sin as many times as he mentioned it was ok. in other words, None. However there are many instances in the Bible's old testament that condemns homosexuality. The confusion is that while Jesus did revoke some of the old laws, physical Circumcision, burnt offerings, etc... there are others that he did not mention. Homosexuality is one of them.

that's why christians tend to be split on this issue. is it ok now? is it still condemned?

EDITED: wrong info.

I thought that said "Jesus is Gay"...and I was about to skim the thread for more flamebait.

I agree that Jesus didn't ever address homosexuality (at least, not in the bits I read). I think the reason it remained prohibited, while eating shellfish, pork, and cheeseburgers etc. was allowed, is traced back to St Paul. In his letters he goes on about a terrible lot of things. Many of them have earlier biblical precedent. I've heard some of them described as prejudiced fabricated nonsense, even by relatively conservative practising Christians. As to Jesus himself though, I don't remember him ever mentioning the subject.

I'm not as well read in the scripture as I should be. Is there anywhere where jesus actually says being gay is wrong? I was under the impression that that was a church thing from the middle ages but a super-christian diesagrees with me.
Christ never mentioned it, but there's some bullshit about God hating it when a man treats another man as though he were a woman in the old testament: I've noticed that most of these fundamentalist mouthbreathers are inclined to completely ignore everything Christ is claimed to have said in favour of dwelling on the archaic jewish proscriptions he spent most of the new testament protesting vigorously.

that's why christians tend to be split on this issue. is it ok now? is it still condemned?
don't forget to mention that they tend to split on whether those passages really refer to homosexuality or something else. "interpretation" is a key word with all things bible..

I'm not as well read in the scripture as I should be. Is there anywhere where jesus actually says being gay is wrong? I was under the impression that that was a church thing from the middle ages but a super-christian diesagrees with me.

And, truly, if you follow scripture, the entire Homosexuality point is irrelevant. Remember: All men have sinned. Sinning does not condemn one to hell, and all sins are equal in weight. Funny how so many people forget this.

don't forget to mention that they tend to split on whether those passages really refer to homosexuality or something else. "interpretation" is a key word with all things bible..
true, but "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman" is rather straightforward... but it just could be that no one brought the subject up to him. :shrugs:

Christ never mentioned it, but there's some bullshit about God hating it when a man treats another man as though he were a woman in the old testament: I've noticed that most of these fundamentalist mouthbreathers are inclined to completely ignore everything Christ is claimed to have said in favour of dwelling on the archaic jewish proscriptions he spent most of the new testament protesting vigorously.did he say that the wrongness of man sleeping with man as he would a woman was revoked?

What other Archaic Jewish Proscriptions are upheld by Christians that Jesus did say it was ok to do?

true, but "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman" is rather straightforward... but it just could be that no one brought the subject up to him. :shrugs:

Not quite. You see, that passage alone may seem as thus, but when taken within the context of what else is said, it means something entirely different. It actually refers to prostitution of young boys by priests at the temples. It was common practice at the time that this was written. Of course, people tend to forget this...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/fabulous.jpg

Jesus mentions that Homosexuality is a Sin as many times as he mentioned it was ok. in other words, None. However there are many instances in the Bible's old testament that condemns homosexuality. The confusion is that while Jesus did revoke some of the old laws, Eating of shellfish, pork, etc... there are others that he did not mention. Homosexuality is one of them.

that's why christians tend to be split on this issue. is it ok now? is it still condemned?
Really he mentioned shellfish and such? I was not aware of that

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

It's a right wing site, but it does give references,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22

While I myself do not like flamers, it really makes me angry how these people think they are the voice of God. The people who wrote the Bible I mean.

true, but "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman" is rather straightforward... but it just could be that no one brought the subject up to him. :shrugs:
funnily enough, I was thinking of this exact passage when posting my comment..and if it weren't so late around here and me so damn tired, I'd probably even be crazy enough to try and dig up that one post here in General somebody made about how one could interpret that very one as not referring to homosexuality. I'm sorry I forgot just how it went, the only thing my mushed brain can remember now is that it was a different one.

What Christ did say in regards to sex was limited to endorsing a man and wife relationship. Such as, leaving your family to make a new family with your wife or husband, . Additionally, he said that sex was exclusively for the marriage relationship, so all other sexuality is essentially forbidden without needing to be mentioned distinctively. In other words, all sex outside of sex with your husband or wife was blanket covered as forbidden because you were to be a 'eunuch or celibate,' outside of or before marriage.

Adultery, fornication or homosexuality etc., they don't need to be addressed specifically because the only acceptable standard was described as a husband and wife.

Somebody else mentioned that other rules, like eating clams or pigs, was lifted, and that is absolutely right, but Jesus himself increased the restrictions, not decreased, the restrictions of marriage and sexual relations.

It should be noted that when talking about incest, God was supposed to have said 'uncover the nakedness of'.

What Christ did say in regards to sex was limited to endorsing a man and wife relationship. Such as, leaving your family to make a new family with your wife or husband, . Additionally, he said that sex was exclusively for the marriage relationship, so all other sexuality is essentially forbidden without needing to be mentioned distinctively. In other words, all sex outside of sex with your husband or wife was blanket covered as forbidden because you were to be a 'eunuch or celibate,' outside of or before marriage.

Adultery, fornication or homosexuality etc., they don't need to be addressed specifically because the only acceptable standard was described as a husband and wife.

Did he say man and wife, or marriage in general. Because then it falls to whether or not gay marriage is right.

ahem....scriptures please.......cant have a decent religious debate without supporting your quotations of the Bible with the corresponding scriptures...

ahem....scriptures please.......cant have a decent religious debate without supporting your quotations of the Bible with the corresponding scriptures...
Agreed

Like I asked so many people claimed jesus came to change the laws (or fufill the scripture) but fail to show at what point he revoked the laws about food or clothing consumption

I would be intrested in seeing where that was revoked but the law on homosexuality was not

It should be noted that when talking about incest, God was supposed to have said 'uncover the nakedness of'.



Did he say man and wife, or marriage in general. Because then it falls to whether or not gay marriage is right.

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

And at the end there, he said it straight up, if you can't be married then you are to make yourself eunuchs (celibate, sexless - it doesn't mean cut or mutilate yourself - regardless of what other people might want to try and say).

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Awesome, so if a gay man is married to a woman, leaves her and runs off and marries another guy it's not adultery?

Maybe this here "Christianity" has some good points after all.

ahem....scriptures please.......cant have a decent religious debate without supporting your quotations of the Bible with the corresponding scriptures...

Let's see. I don't have a bible with me at the moment but I believe he said, 'you shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, her nakedness is your nakedness,' and said similar things about brothers, father, mother, aunts, uncles, etc.

Let's see. I don't have a bible with me at the moment but I believe he said, 'you shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, her nakedness is your nakedness,' and said similar things about brothers, father, mother, aunts, uncles, etc.
http://www.biblegateway.com

Awesome, so if a gay man is married to a woman, leaves her and runs off and marries another guy it's not adultery?

Maybe this here "Christianity" has some good points after all.

Of course, you skipped over the, forces 'her' to commit adultery by divorcing her and she then has to get re-married, thus, it too would be sin on the first husband because he ‘caused’ it..

Let's see. I don't have a bible with me at the moment but I believe he said, 'you shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, her nakedness is your nakedness,' and said similar things about brothers, father, mother, aunts, uncles, etc.

Well if youre going to say "God said__________" then it'd be nice to back it up with a reference. Most of the religious debaters on NS do just that. There are online Bible's that can help you. I'm just saying that enough arguing goes on withing a religious thread.....it'd be a shame to create entirely new arguments because people are mis-quoting the Bible....


But thats just my opinion.....

Of course, you skipped over the, forces 'her' to commit adultery by divorcing her and she then has to get re-married, thus, it too would be sin on the first husband because he ‘caused’ it..
Oh, I'm just doing what the various Christian groups have taught me to do.

Take the bits I like and disregard the rest.

I mean, isn't that how the Bible is meant to be read?

Really he mentioned shellfish and such? I was not aware of that
after researching, I was wrong, it was peter who made mention of it, but even then there are evidence to show that the dietary plan outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are still enforced. Will edit post.

Like I asked so many people claimed jesus came to change the laws (or fufill the scripture) but fail to show at what point he revoked the laws about food or clothing consumption

I would be intrested in seeing where that was revoked but the law on homosexuality was not

I remember my mum (an episcopalian priest) say that with the very fact of his life/existence, jesus took the whole burden of the OT laws, and fulfilled them forever and for everyone, so that from his life on they were no longer relevant to us humans. That is saying that he never "repealed" any laws one by one, but just took them all away implicitly through his mere existence.

I can, unfortunately, not quote any biblical references on that.

Oh, I'm just doing what the various Christian groups have taught me to do.

Take the bits I like and disregard the rest.

I mean, isn't that how the Bible is meant to be read?

Some do, some do, that's for sure :p

Oh, I'm just doing what the various Christian groups have taught me to do.

Take the bits I like and disregard the rest.

I mean, isn't that how the Bible is meant to be read?
Thats how most do it

They manage to find justification for it later on

who the fuck knows what "God" said? Nobody, that's who

Its worth noting in any biblical discussion that leads to quoting of scripture that the Bible was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Therefore all quotations are going to be of translations which can be themselves coloured by the agenda of whoever translated it.

Sica']Its worth noting in any biblical discussion that leads to quoting of scripture that the Bible was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Therefore all quotations are going to be of translations which can be themselves coloured by the agenda of whoever translated it.
Probably translations and re-translations.

Like...Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> Modern English

Is that how it went?

I remember my mum (an episcopalian priest) say that with the very fact of his life/existence, jesus took the whole burden of the OT laws, and fulfilled them forever and for everyone, so that from his life on they were no longer relevant to us humans. That is saying that he never "repealed" any laws one by one, but just took them all away implicitly through his mere existence.

I can, unfortunately, not quote any biblical references on that.
Amazing that god would have implemented the inferior set of laws then come up with a better one later on, and have to use someones death to revoke them and make the necessary changes.

Oh, I'm just doing what the various Christian groups have taught me to do.

Take the bits I like and disregard the rest.

I mean, isn't that how the Bible is meant to be read?
Ahh, the wonders of taking things in context. Think I'll be making a little side-topic out of this one.

Sica']Its worth noting in any biblical discussion that leads to quoting of scripture that the Bible was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Therefore all quotations are going to be of translations which can be themselves coloured by the agenda of whoever translated it.

Touche'..........indeed.

Some do, some do, that's for sure :p

Thats how most do it

They manage to find justification for it later on

Phew!

That's ok then, I thought I was doing it wrong!

Probably translations and re-translations.

Like...Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> Modern English

Is that how it went?
If I remember right

Hebrew --> Greek ---> latan -> english
Greek -> latan -> english

(The reson I wrote them seperatly is if I remember right the NT was greek to start with)

and in some cases later went back and went

Greek-> engluish
And Hebrew (sort of) -> english (though often through greek too)

Depends on the biblical version

Sica']Its worth noting in any biblical discussion that leads to quoting of scripture that the Bible was NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. Therefore all quotations are going to be of translations which can be themselves coloured by the agenda of whoever translated it.
While true it is at least somewhat more concrete then pulling quotes out of your ass

And, truly, if you follow scripture, the entire Homosexuality point is irrelevant. Remember: All men have sinned. Sinning does not condemn one to hell, and all sins are equal in weight. Funny how so many people forget this.
interesting. Wheres that?

If I remember right

Hebrew --> Greek ---> latan -> english
Greek -> latan -> english

(The reson I wrote them seperatly is if I remember right the NT was greek to start with)

and in some cases later went back and went

Greek-> engluish
And Hebrew (sort of) -> english (though often through greek too)

Depends on the biblical version
Aye, I thought it was something like that

Probably translations and re-translations.

Like...Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> Modern English

Is that how it went?

Most of the modern translations like New International Version (NIV) or the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) among others, tries to go back to the original and oldest copies to be translated directly to modern English. The source material, depending on age and book, may be Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew etc,.


I mentioned those two because I find that they don't copy each other and thus, they shed light in different ways. I've heard the New American is similar, but I can't vouch for it myself, having not actually compared it myself.

Amazing that god would have implemented the inferior set of laws then come up with a better one later on, and have to use someones death to revoke them and make the necessary changes.

It's amazing how it took him idon'tknowhowmany years to finally decide that from that point on, there would be redemption for everyone and for every sin, and that it was necessary to use someone's death to make that little change.
You've got to admit that the jesus thing changed a hell lot and made the majority of the "good" and "important" rules, and that, considering this, the decision to pull off that very jesus thing came very late in the game.
But then, the bible and its interpretations just are an amazing thing.

http://www.biblegateway.com
also another interesting site...
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/main.html

And, truly, if you follow scripture, the entire Homosexuality point is irrelevant. Remember: All men have sinned. Sinning does not condemn one to hell, and all sins are equal in weight. Funny how so many people forget this.

All sins are not equal. Where in the Bible does it say that they are?

On a practical note: Is taking two samples, when the sign clearly says "Take one" on the same level as murdering a child in front of his mother?

Remember: All men have sinned. Sinning does not condemn one to hell, and all sins are equal in weight. interesting. Wheres that?

wasn't that one of the big parts of the whole jesus stunt?

While true it is at least somewhat more concrete then pulling quotes out of your ass


Thanks UT.

I didnt mean that the Bible is God's actually word and that whatever it says is so:rolleyes: ....I have seen these debates go off the deep end due to people just making up things that arent even in the Bible. I think one time someone said that the Bible said computers are spawn from the antichrist and that the second coming would be in 2010 and that Jesus would be wearing a Fez. They said that the Bible actually said those words. It was quite humorous. So no, I certainly wasnt saying the Bible is a fact based book that proves anything.

Amazing that god would have implemented the inferior set of laws then come up with a better one later on, and have to use someones death to revoke them and make the necessary changes.

Some would argue that Abraham taking his son up the mountain, to be sacrificed, was the first prophesy/promise of God taking his own son, instead of Abraham's son, up the mountain, so to speak.

And other would argue that there are several Psalms promising future redemption.

I will say though, the OT is not my specialty and someone else might be able to shed more light on the issue.

2 Timothy 3:16-All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

This one tiny piece of the bible practically denies the whole. Because of this piece:

-It is not guarunteed that God or Jesus ever condemned homosexuality

-Many stories in the bible now sound much less credible

-Things Jesus said could have been misinterpreted, or perhaps the authors heard him clearly, then forgot what he said and put down what they remembered

-For all we know, Jesus could have been a snowman

In fact, it could be said that this piece of the bible says that it's all made up but people should use the bible anyways to guide them through life.

It's amazing how it took him idon'tknowhowmany years to finally decide that from that point on, there would be redemption for everyone and for every sin, and that it was necessary to use someone's death to make that little change.
You've got to admit that the jesus thing changed a hell lot and made the majority of the "good" and "important" rules, and that, considering this, the decision to pull off that very jesus thing came very late in the game.
But then, the bible and its interpretations just are an amazing thing.
You caught my drift exactly :)

You figure god would not need to beta test :)

don't forget to mention that they tend to split on whether those passages really refer to homosexuality or something else. "interpretation" is a key word with all things bible..


i agree with you; perception is the key to everything. the original bible might not have said as much or have meant completely something else. that is a major factor is history especially the Renaissance when philosophers were trying to find original Greek manuscripts to try and better understand what they were trying to say; the further you move down a "translating line" the more opinionated and biased it becomes. Bibles now-a-days are way too differentiated from what the original was probably like...

tyty
masterofwords402003@yahoo.com; email me if you want to debate, i could maybe go for one...

I remember my mum (an episcopalian priest) say that with the very fact of his life/existence, jesus took the whole burden of the OT laws, and fulfilled them forever and for everyone, so that from his life on they were no longer relevant to us humans. That is saying that he never "repealed" any laws one by one, but just took them all away implicitly through his mere existence.

I can, unfortunately, not quote any biblical references on that.

Cool! Murder's not a sin! w00t! Um, I'll be right back...:sniper:

who the fuck knows what "God" said? Nobody, that's who
easy there buddy, i dont think anyone claims to know what god said, theyre jsut refering to the bible

Thanks UT.
snip
NP I knew what you were geting at

Probably translations and re-translations.

Like...Hebrew -> Greek -> Latin -> Modern English

Is that how it went?

The New Testament was originally written in a form of Greek that died out 1500 years or ago. Observe how meaning can be obscured and how something can become garbled along the way (EXERCISE - use babelfish.altavista.com to translate something like "I would like to buy some milk and also a packet of cheese if you have it" through a few different langauges and see what you get)

More importantly though some languages have concepts that we don't have and vice versa. Greek has four words for love. Many Western European langauges like French and German have the same verb for make & do. Many Eastern European languages don't have articles. Japanese is famous for embedding degrees of politeness and respect that don't exist in languages. There is a language in SE Asia that has a verb which literally means "to love for the last time". Sometimes the differences between langauges can be adequately explained, other times it just can't - there may be no corresponding term or concept in the target langauge.

Cool! Murder's not a sin! w00t! Um, I'll be right back...:sniper:
sorry, that's wrong, not all of the commandments were desolved, some still made it to "God's law 2.0"

Damn...
*Puts down Sniper Rifle*

sorry, that's wrong, not all of the commandments were desolved, some still made it to "God's law 2.0"

How you we know which ones, though?

All sins are not equal. Where in the Bible does it say that they are?

On a practical note: Is taking two samples, when the sign clearly says "Take one" on the same level as murdering a child in front of his mother?

Marthin Luther claimed that all sins were equal (equally mortal sins, btw). Catholics do not agree with that, in fact, they have some sort of a rating syste to get things straight (venial, mortal, ..).

There is quite some hassle going on about whether the bible says all sins were equal or not, and as far as I gathered, both sides find bible quotes for their claim. Did I mention "interpretation" already?

interesting. Wheres that?

Matthew, 7:1-7:5

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Note that man should not judge man, or else you to shall be judged by your own measure.

3Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Note here that if you say that one act is of great sin, then you forget that you to have sinned. By saying that homosexuality is such a terrible sin, and are thus condemned to hell, you forget that you as well have made many sins in your life, and that you are in turn a hyporcrite.

Further more...

7Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

What I meant as in "equal in weight" means that all sins can equally be forgiven. All one needs to do is ask. There is no condemnable sin.

Easy-peasy lemon-squeezy.

You figure god would not need to beta test :)
Some people say that the jesus part was supposed to be a version 1.0 feature but god just couldn't find a girl willing to bear his child for ages on end so he kinda gave up on it and added that patch once he got his resources straight..but that's just malicious rumors.

Marthin Luther claimed that all sins were equal (equally mortal sins, btw). Catholics do not agree with that, in fact, they have some sort of a rating syste to get things straight (venial, mortal, ..).

There is quite some hassle going on about whether the bible says all sins were equal or not, and as far as I gathered, both sides find bible quotes for their claim. Did I mention "interpretation" already?

I know the Catholic viewpoint. (My last foster family was a bunch of really nice Catholics.) I've never found anything in either the Bible or the New Testament that said that everything was equal.

How you we know which ones, though?
That's the sticky part. one has to read and really think about what is written in there. you can take alot of things at face value, but chances are, you might be wrong.

Some people say that the jesus part was supposed to be a version 1.0 feature but god just couldn't find a girl willing to bear his child for ages on end so he kinda gave up on it and added that patch once he got his resources straight..but that's just malicious rumors.

It was an 'expansion'. :)

I know the Catholic viewpoint. (My last foster family was a bunch of really nice Catholics.) I've never found anything in either the Bible or the New Testament that said that everything was equal.

See my last quote. The point wasn't that they were equal-bad rhetoric on my part-but that there is no one condemnable sin(Except for the denial of God and if Christian Jesus). God forgives all sins. Confusing matter, really, this whole "language" business..

If you're going to go by what Jesus said, don't you think you should go by what the rest of the Bible says too?

Jesus mentions sexual immorality, but he does not explain what it refers to.

Matthew 15 16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

Now many people cite Leviticus 18, but interestingly the language of the 'homosexual' passage varied quite a lot from the 'sexual relations' language found in other passages.

Leviticus 18 16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Isn't it interesting that it does not simply say sexual relations as all the other passages do? Clearly, it meant something else.

Matthew 5 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Divorce is permitted if it is due to marital infidelity. This is important to understand in the context of any other passages that says divorcing a woman makes her an adultress. There are other passages that leave out the part about marital infidelity.

Also, again, I'd like to point out that adultery and sexual immorality are not listed as equal according to Jesus (as he mentioned both in the first cited passage of this post).

Matthew 19 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

It is pointed out that for those that would be unfaithful, it is better not to marry. This to me suggests that Jesus and the disciples viewed sexual infidelity as sinful and sex outside without marriage as at the very least less sinful and possibly not sinful at all.

As in the earlier post, I agree that Jesus does not refer to physical or chemical Eunuchs only, but refers to people who are chemical, physical and psychological Eunuchs. However, given the context it seems to be that he is using a word intended to mean not sexless, but resistent to a consumated marital relationship (meaning they will not be faithful spouses). The evidence for this is that he is does not reproach the disciples when suggest that people who would be sexually unfaithful in marriage not marry at all.

So how does one reach a conclusion as what Jesus meant if there are no specifics as to his views on 'sexual immorality'?

Well, that's a good question, Timmy. I would say follow the sum of the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 7 9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

In other words, sexual immorality is about not hurting or offending others with acts like rape, prostition (prostitution involves monetary coersion), molestation, etc. Jesus never directly or indirectly condemns any other act of sex.

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Ask him yourself.

Sica']The New Testament was originally written in a form of Greek that died out 1500 years or ago. Observe how meaning can be obscured and how something can become garbled along the way (EXERCISE - use babelfish.altavista.com to translate something like "I would like to buy some milk and also a packet of cheese if you have it" through a few different langauges and see what you get)

More importantly though some languages have concepts that we don't have and vice versa. Greek has four words for love. Many Western European langauges like French and German have the same verb for make & do. Many Eastern European languages don't have articles. Japanese is famous for embedding degrees of politeness and respect that don't exist in languages. There is a language in SE Asia that has a verb which literally means "to love for the last time". Sometimes the differences between langauges can be adequately explained, other times it just can't - there may be no corresponding term or concept in the target langauge.

This is a very good point people. Always remember: The Bible has been heavily edited - The Old Testament was written by a group of Rabbi's during the Babylonian exile in order to preserve Jewish cultural identity so that they were not assimilated into the babylonian culture like the "lost tribe" of israel. With regards to the New Testament - many of the writings available at the time didn't make it into the bible because they didn't fit into the "accepted" story of jesus or wer written by women. Also please keep in mind that while some bible editors like to translate from the original source - the original source was written by someone who would have been barely literate by todays standards and also without the same vocabulary that we have to today to express ideas. Unfortunately things get taken out of context and have to be "interpreted" rather than directly translated which can lead to a mix up in meanings as interpretations are generally coloured by the person doing it since interpretation is mostly subjective no matter how pure the intention is.
Regardless of what the Bible states, homosexuality and heterosexuality are both expressions of Love. There is NO Sin in Loving someone.:)

Matthew, 7:1-7:5
What I meant as in "equal in weight" means that all sins can equally be forgiven. All one needs to do is ask. There is no condemnable sin.


Note that this can be argued both ways. One argumentation is that every sin is, through Christ, forgiveable if you truly repent, and that this makes all sins equal. You know, as in God, the equal opportunity forgiver.

The other way says that all sins are equal because god only knows sin-or-not-sin mode. 0 or 1, so to speak.
References include Romans 6:23 (for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of god is eternal life in christ jesus our lord) that some people claim to be the ultimate quote for both, for the pric eof one.

But once I'm thumping my bible, I shall not omit the rather ominous 1 John 5:16-17 (if anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and god will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death) that kinda backs up the catholic sin category thingy.

Oh, three cheers for clarity.

Here's a mindfuck for you:

King Richard, the great hero of Christianity and the Crusades (I'm not sure why, though, he never really acheived anything) had to do penance not once, but twice for sodomy.

sorry, that's wrong, not all of the commandments were desolved, some still made it to "God's law 2.0"

He didn't lift the commandments. Just Levitical law.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

It's a right wing site, but it does give references,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22

While I myself do not like flamers, it really makes me angry how these people think they are the voice of God. The people who wrote the Bible I mean.

The Leviticus quote that ACTUALLY talks about menstrual women?

See - this is the problem with accepting English translations....

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Ask him yourself.

I did. He says you're mostly right on the money.

And that you need to get laid more often. :)

It was an 'expansion'. :)
Every good massive player game needs one at some point or people will get bored and quit playing.

The Leviticus quote that ACTUALLY talks about menstrual women?

Oy, that was you, with the post I talked about, right?! In that one weirdo thread where we went to have that little bibly discussion about creation, adam&eve, and homosexuality? I think I remember now..

Oy, that was you, with the post I talked about, right?! In that one weirdo thread where we went to have that little bibly discussion about creation, adam&eve, and homosexuality? I think I remember now..

If it was about the Bible, GnI was there and probably drooling.

ahem....scriptures please.......cant have a decent religious debate without supporting your quotations of the Bible with the corresponding scriptures...

Damn straight. Go, Peech... you rock! :)

Many people are very confused on this subject that is why i tell christians to bible study many you things you hear by Chirstans are wrong accodring to the bible. Jesus says the homesexality is blasphmy(which is bad srry if it is spelled wrong) In gnesis it says that God has made sex for a married man and women. Any use of gods craetions that he did not make is wrong.

Basik']Any use of gods craetions that he did not make is wrong.
Like...computers? Or cars? Or clothes? Or, or, or, or....

We use the elements, which are "God's creations", in a way that 'God' did not make.

Reading your title gave me a chuckle

Jesus: Up for cards?
Gay: All right.
Jesus: Name your game.
Gay: Hmmm, BS.
*shuffles and deals*
Gay: two twos.
Jesus: I am God, and know you're lying.
Gay: Ah, crap.

He didn't lift the commandments. Just Levitical law.
meant commandments as law. and someone else mentioned that he lifted all the 10 Commandments.

and not all of the Levitical law was lifted.

Matthew 19
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

And at the end there, he said it straight up, if you can't be married then you are to make yourself eunuchs (celibate, sexless - it doesn't mean cut or mutilate yourself - regardless of what other people might want to try and say).

Actually - if you read the context there, Jesus shows an ideal... based on Mosaic scripture. He doesn't really endorse that view, other than to draw the logical conclusion that those wed in the eyes of god should try to remain united.

Hoe continues to show that the Mosaic law is unreasonable - explaining that the old law is modified, now (well... then) so that it is NOT 'as it was in the beginning'.

Further - none of that actually speaks to whether a man can marry a man, or a woman marry a woman.


Regarding the last verse... at least be honest enough to translate it direct. He didn't say 'remain celibate'... he said that you should make yourself an eunuch. It's quite clear in the native tongue... and I think this is just another one of those examples where Christianity (as a movement) fails to translate correctly, the parts of the scripture that it doesn't like.

true, but "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman" is rather straightforward... but it just could be that no one brought the subject up to him. :shrugs:

I think when people read "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman", that they're often not considering what could possibly be a very literal interpretation. Perhaps, in biblical times, there were certain positions in which it was okay for men to be with women, and certain positions in which it was okay for men to be with men, and that sexual position was a distinguishing line between sexual reproduction, and sexual expression. Perhaps, in stating that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman, it may have God's way of saying to not forget about sexual reproduction. Not that laying with another man is wrong, but that it isn't a substitute for laying with a woman.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Marthin Luther claimed that all sins were equal (equally mortal sins, btw). Catholics do not agree with that, in fact, they have some sort of a rating syste to get things straight (venial, mortal, ..).

There is quite some hassle going on about whether the bible says all sins were equal or not, and as far as I gathered, both sides find bible quotes for their claim. Did I mention "interpretation" already?

Martin Luther wasn't paying much attention in Bible class, then... Abominations are sins, and there are definitely 'tiers' in the 'abominations'... depending on whether they are against God or not.

meant commandments as law. and someone else mentioned that he lifted all the 10 Commandments.

and not all of the Levitical law was lifted.

The commandments were referred to often by Jesus and he believed it was to be enforced and could be simply by following his summation as I quoted above. Do unto others... There is not a one of the commandments that are not upheld by that statement. And Jesus clearly was not in support of Levitical law. He called it man's law, not God's law (like the commandments).

Matthew 15 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

He viewed Levitical law as little more than tradition.

I think when people read "man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman", that they're often not considering what could possibly be a very literal interpretation. Perhaps, in biblical times, there were certain positions in which it was okay for men to be with women, and certain positions in which it was okay for men to be with men, and that sexual position was a distinguishing line between sexual reproduction, and sexual expression. Perhaps, in stating that a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a woman, it may have God's way of saying to not forget about sexual reproduction. Not that laying with another man is wrong, but that it isn't a substitute for laying with a woman.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

That is a very..different..first post. Welcome. And thanks for providing me with yet another take on Leviticus. Coming across it as often as I do, I always like adding to my collection :)

Oy, that was you, with the post I talked about, right?! In that one weirdo thread where we went to have that little bibly discussion about creation, adam&eve, and homosexuality? I think I remember now..

Ha ha!

That probably was me... that sounds like my material.

If it discussed how Adam and Eve are actually a mechanism for retelling the creation story (Flesh and Spirit united, basically)... and delved into the Hebrew, to explain WHY Leviticus 18:22 is talking about the bed of a menstrual woman...

Then, yes... guilty as charged. :)

On a practical note: Is taking two samples, when the sign clearly says "Take one" on the same level as murdering a child in front of his mother?

Each one involves knowing you are committing a sin, and committing it anyways. I'd say, the sin is knowing you're doing wrong and doing it anyway, not necessarily the act of the sin itself.

*quietly waits and giggles while GnI reviews his posts, heart aflutter, atwitter, etc.*

If it was about the Bible, GnI was there and probably drooling.

:D

My fame precedes me...

*laughing*

Each one involves knowing you are committing a sin, and committing it anyways. I'd say, the sin is knowing you're doing wrong and doing it anyway, not necessarily the act of the sin itself.

So God doesn't really care about people, just about making us follow his arbitary rules?

If it discussed how Adam and Eve are actually a mechanism for retelling the creation story (Flesh and Spirit united, basically)... and delved into the Hebrew, to explain WHY Leviticus 18:22 is talking about the bed of a menstrual woman...

Then, yes... guilty as charged. :)

That's the one. [And I remember that urge to call you Gravey I had that time, the one that is now re-surfacing. I know it was you, now :) ]

On a different note:
Abominations are sins, and there are definitely 'tiers' in the 'abominations'... depending on whether they are against God or not.
may I remind you of your own call to back up biblical claims with references?

So God doesn't really care about people, just about making us follow his arbitary rules?

Actually the sum of the 'arbitrary rules' shows exactly the opposite. As quoted, "Do unto others..." is the sum of the Law and the Prophets. That sounds like they are neither arbitrary nor exhibitting a lack of care for the fates of people.

*quietly waits and giggles while GnI reviews his posts, heart aflutter, atwitter, etc.*
I shall forget any arguments we may have had and let you have my second hot water bottle for giving me that word.

The commandments were referred to often by Jesus and he believed it was to be enforced and could be simply by following his summation as I quoted above. Do unto others... There is not a one of the commandments that are not upheld by that statement. And Jesus clearly was not in support of Levitical law. He called it man's law, not God's law (like the commandments).

Matthew 15 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

He viewed Levitical law as little more than tradition.

I agree.... Jesus recites his own versions of the Commandments... differently each time, I seem to recall... and he only ends up with five.

However, as Jocabia so eloquently states... that is largely because he combined many of them into one 'super commandment'.

I could wander-off at a tangent now, about how the Old Testament CLEARLY says that the set of Levitical Laws we CALL 'the Ten Commandments' are NOT the ones God dictated... but, I'll leave that off-topic excitement for another time...

But - back on the topic... yes, Jesus argued that the bulk of Levitical Law was 'terrestrial', rather than divine. And, inspection OF most of the law actually bears this out.... the rules about food are logical rules based on living in hot climates, for example... nothing 'divine' required.

Actually the sum of the 'arbitrary rules' shows exactly the opposite. As quoted, "Do unto others..." is the sum of the Law and the Prophets. That sounds like they are neither arbitrary nor exhibitting a lack of care for the fates of people.

You misunderstood me. I'm trying to get Jyanken's/the Christian perspective. It just seemed to me like he said God would rather have us follow the rules, and that it was breaking the rules that was bad, not the consenquences of breaking them.

Or clothes?
Actually, if you wanna be technical about it, God made the first animal skin clothes in Genesis after Adam and Eve sinned.
Genesis 3:21 NIV:
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them

Actually, if you wanna be technical about it, God made the first animal skin clothes in Genesis after Adam and Eve sinned.
Genesis 3:21 NIV:
Yea, I wasn't sure about that one, I knew Leviticus had at least one reference to mixed fabric clothing, but I wasn't sure if it could be extended over the whole lot or not.

The commandments were referred to often by Jesus and he believed it was to be enforced and could be simply by following his summation as I quoted above. Do unto others... There is not a one of the commandments that are not upheld by that statement. And Jesus clearly was not in support of Levitical law. He called it man's law, not God's law (like the commandments).

Matthew 15 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

He viewed Levitical law as little more than tradition.not all of levitical laws were "revoked." there is evidence in the link I provided a while back that the diet thing is still honored.
http://www.biblestudy.org gives some interpretations as well as supporing verses.

So God doesn't really care about people, just about making us follow his arbitary rules?

If you want to have a dark, pessimistic view of the situation, then sure.

He gave us life, gave us a place to live it, and gave us a guidelines on how to respect it. Any sin is disrespectful, and any disrespect is a sin. I don't think it matters much if one sin is worse than another, because, period, it's disrespect.

You misunderstood me. I'm trying to get Jyanken's/the Christian perspective. It just seemed to me like he said God would rather have us follow the rules, and that it was breaking the rules that was bad, not the consenquences of breaking them.

You're getting a Christian perspective, but I'll let you wait for his. I took his point to mean that if we know something is wrong to do then we shouldn't do it regardless of whether we are caught or someone is directly harmed. If I am a drunk driver, I know it's not only legally wrong, but wrong as a good person. If I make it to where I was going without killing anyone or hurting anything, it is the act that makes me guilty not the consequences of the act. I haven't sinned worse because I was unlucky and I haven't sinned less because I was lucky.

I'm trying to get Jyanken's/the Christian perspective. It .


Lol. I'm not a Christian. Raised Catholic, presonally consider it all rubbish, but I still have my opinions and interpretations of what I was taught as a child.

But - back on the topic... yes, Jesus argued that the bulk of Levitical Law was 'terrestrial', rather than divine. And, inspection OF most of the law actually bears this out.... the rules about food are logical rules based on living in hot climates, for example... nothing 'divine' required.
But, teacher, what if I say hot wheather is divine, now?

Also: 'terrestrial'..I have the queasy feeling one of us will bring up aliens into this discussion sooner or later..*leans back and waits*

not all of levitical laws were "revoked." there is evidence in the link I provided a while back that the diet thing is still honored.
http://www.biblestudy.org gives some interpretations as well as supporing verses.

Am I supposed to search through that? Can you just quote me the verses?

i think the antihomostance of the church comes from broadly applying the principle of "not wasting semen" iirc he punished onan for not wanting to ejaculate in his wife and also god commanded men to be fruitful and multiply and you cannot do that if you dont have heterosex. probably with the same idea the church is against contraception as it also violates the fruitful+multiply order.

honestly, from what is written in the bible, you have to get the idea that jesus was gay himself, i mean allways hanging around with a dozzen male "disciples" is very strange.

Off I am, with the one last helpful bible quote 2 Timothy 2:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:23&version=31) :)

That's the one. [And I remember that urge to call you Gravey I had that time, the one that is now re-surfacing. I know it was you, now :) ]

On a different note:

may I remind you of your own call to back up biblical claims with references?

Hoist by my own petard, eh?

Well, an example MIGHT be...

Leviticus 11:22-4 "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even."

Where, 'abomination' is from the Hebrew "sheqets"... which means "detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation".

This class of abomination requires the person to be cleansed ritually.

The point is exapanded upon later - Leviticus 11:43 "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

So - these 'abominations' are those that taint the flesh, that make one unclean - and that must be 'undone' by ritual.

On the other hand, if one looks at Leviticus 18:22 (even though I quibble what the 'sin' of 18:22 is) we find:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

Now, in THIS case, 'abomination' is from the Hebrew "Tow'ebah', which means "a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)".

Abominations of this class are treated differently. No longer is ritual cleansing enough for the 'abomination against god'. Indeed, if one looks at Leviticus 18:29 "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people"... we see that THESE 'abominations' are 'mortal'... These are the ones that are dealt with by exlie or execution.

i think the antihomostance of the church comes from broadly applying the principle of "not wasting semen" iirc he punished onan for not wanting to ejaculate in his wife and also god commanded men to be fruitful and multiply and you cannot do that if you dont have heterosex. probably with the same idea the church is against contraception as it also violates the fruitful+multiply order.

honestly, from what is written in the bible, you have to get the idea that jesus was gay himself, i mean allways hanging around with a dozzen male "disciples" is very strange.

Actually... Onan was condemned for not wanting to ejaculate inside the widow of his recently deceased brother.

(His sin was refusing to impregnate her... but the modern church prefers to pretend it's something about spanking your monkey...)

This entire topic could go into a flame war if we are not too carefull.

No offense, but from what I have learned, the bible says alot of things, just not too clearly. There are still speculations that some text from the bible was edited back in the medaevil ages, so alot of what Jesus said and didn't say could have been edited and censored. And because of that, we may never get an exact answer.
Don't hate me though, I am just voicing my opinion

Jesus never mentions about homosexuality. However Paul states and if you would liek the quote I wil lgive it later that drunkards homosexuals and sorcerers shall never inherit the kingdom of heaven. ALso in the Book of leviticus chapter 22 homosexuality is a very big sin.

ALthough Jesus never mentions homosexuality.

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls."
Looks like Peter says to keep faith in stuff you belive in, 'cause when JC will come back (apocalypse probably since quite a few time has to pass) he will reconsider?
Go gay! :D

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls."
Looks like Peter says to keep faith in stuff you belive in, 'cause when JC will come back (apocalypse probably since quite a few time has to pass) he will reconsider?
Go gay! :D

Im pretty sure Peter and pretty much all the other apostels are referring to clinging to the beliefs that they were describing throughout the Bible, not just any beliefs you want....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

It's a right wing site, but it does give references,

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22

While I myself do not like flamers, it really makes me angry how these people think they are the voice of God. The people who wrote the Bible I mean.

You really shouldnt quote Leviticus, its an out-dated, irrelavant book, filled with giudlines for living thousands of years ago.
This is why things like Shellfish, and pork are mentioned, becuase as everyone knows now, eating undercooked, or spoiled meats of these natures, can make you sick.

See, back then people used to live in small communities, and sickness and disease could wipe out a village in days.
Thus, there had to be some rules for the safety of its people.

As for Leviticus, verse 20 mentions that an unmarried woman, who is raped, should be scourged, and not killed for her crime (Yes the bible insinuates that if a woman gets raped, its her fault), but her life is to be spared, because she was "not yet free".

So..perhaps you see now how useless Leviticus really is.

Jesus never mentions about homosexuality. However Paul states and if you would liek the quote I wil lgive it later that drunkards homosexuals and sorcerers shall never inherit the kingdom of heaven. ALso in the Book of leviticus chapter 22 homosexuality is a very big sin.

ALthough Jesus never mentions homosexuality.


Screw Paul.

He was likely closet homosexual himself, given his apparent hatred towards woman.

As for Leviticus....its innapplicable...see above.

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. "
:eek:
Ugh, I've done that many times in my fireplace.....
Should I go confess?