Response to the Letter to Dr. Laura on Homosexuality


This post is a inspired by, and a response to a comment I got on my earlier post Teaching the Bible in US Schools.

————————————

James said at March 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm:

I dont see a problem with discussing the Bible, so long as the discussion is balanced. I think the Bible, particularly the Old Testament contradicts itself… I particularly like an open letter to Dr. Laura that was written a while ago.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

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?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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 Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

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?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 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?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 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? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

James: I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

———————————–

I’ve come across this ‘Letter to Dr. Laura’ before, and recognized that it is intentionally written as a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek piece that takes certain verses out of their context and presents them as shocking bigotry to our modern sensitivities. And if you respond to something like this in a fit of righteous indignation, you’ll have fallen into the trap!

Rat’s Nest has a rather humourous response to the letter, however, citing various Jewish laws that address the questions. Worth a look-see:

   ResponseLetterDrLaura1   ResponseLetterDrLaura2   ResponseLetterDrLaura3

In fact, I recall a very amusing and sacrcastic humour site that purports to be ‘Where the worthwhile worship, unsaved unwelcome!’ Landover Baptist Church makes fun of real cases of over-the-top things some churches do like banning Pokemon because Pokemon is the devil. (The logic is some Pokemon have horns, and the devil has horns, so Pokemon is the devil. Never mind actual cows and deer.)

But when someone seriously confronts you with questions like these, how do you respond? Here I present my thoughts on the seeming conundrum.

THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”Matthew 5:17-18

Jesus Himself said this in Matthew 5. Today, many believe that we as Christians are no longer bound by the Old Testament Laws, particularly those that Moses set for the Israelites. They feel that apart from the Ten Commandments which are basic guidelines, we are exempt from things such as not eating pork, ceremonial washing and bloody animal sacrifices.

Yet if so, why did Jesus say that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it? Does that  followers of Christ are still bound by the Jewish laws? Didn’t Jesus also, in the very same chapter, say things like:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”Matthew 5:38-42

Isn’t that directly contradicting the Law as given by Moses in Exodus 21:23-25: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?”

A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME

Let’s read on through the New Testament. Paul explains the concept more clearly in his letters to the churches. For although God Himself gave the Law to Moses, the Law was but a shadow of the things to come…

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” – Colossians 2:16-17

Think of the person you most want to see. Imagine it’s dusk, and as he or she is walking towards you fromt the direction of the sunset, the first thing to reach you would be his or her shadow.

The shadow may represent him or her, and may look like a distorted shape of him or her. And you may be excited upon recognizing the shadow. But it is not the real thing. When the actual person comes, all your attention is going to be on the real thing. The shadow is still there, of course. But the actual person has come and fulfilled your hopes.

In fact, if you look closely at the Old Testament, you will find many other ‘shadows’ of Jesus. (It helps if you’re familiar with the entire Bible, so I encourage you to read through it at least once in this lifetime.)

There are many events in the Old Testament that have a striking parallel in the New Testament.  Perhaps I can explain this more clearly with an example.

In Genesis 22, God suddenly asked Abraham to prove his devotion by sacrificing his own son, Isaac. The very same son that God had given to him by divine promise, that God said would give rise to a great nation of many descendants. So Abraham obediently did as God asked – though you can imagine the anguish and confusion in his heart.

When Isaac noticed that they were not taking any animal with them, he asked where the lamb for the burnt offering was. And Abraham replied: “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

(Note that Isaac was a grown man by then, and could have easily opposed his father. But he too was willingly obedient, even unto death. Also note that although Abraham had an older child, Ishmael, that was a child by his own efforts and not the child of promise by God’s will.)

And when Abraham was about to commit the deed, God stopped him: “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” And then God Himself provided the offering, a ram.

Now compare this account with the life and death of Jesus. For centuries, the Mosaic Law required sacrifices of blood and life of animals to temporarily atone for the people’s sins. But when Jesus came and gave His blood and life for us, He cleansed us of our sins completely.

(See Hebrews 10 which again says the Law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the realities themselves. And also Hebrews 9, especially verse 23 ‘copies of the heavenly things’)

Jesus obediently gave Himself up to trial, torture and death on the cross… Just as Abraham obediently took Isaac to be sacrificed.

Abraham did not withhold his one and only son from God, but God stopped the sacrificial death in time. Yet God did not withhold from us His one and only Son… And Jesus did experience suffering and death on the cross.

And just as Abraham unknowingly foretold, God Himself provided the Lamb for the offering. Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, whose blood was given as an offering for our sins.

FOLLOWING THE CLUES FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW

You can find many other hints of God’s new covenant in Christ. The study of events that seem to have a correlation is called typology. You can read more about this topic at this site and another site.

And there are tons of examples! In fact, it has been said that the entire of the Old Testament serves the purpose of pointing to its ultimate fulfillment – Jesus.

Here are some of them:

When many people were being bitten by snakes, God commanded Moses to put a serpent symbol up, and anyone who looked at it would be healed of the venom. (Numbers 21:4-9). Jesus compared Himself to this: “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15) He was lifted up on a cross, and those who look to Him now are healed of their sins.

Jonah was in the belly of the great fish 3 days and 3 nights, as good as dead. Yet he was vomited out alive. So was Jesus really dead and in the belly of the earth and on the third day emerged resurrected (Matthew 12:40).

The Israelites as they traveled to the promised land displayed the symbol of our faith, centuries before the Romans made it a standard method of execution.

In fact, even the genealogy from Adam to Noah points towards the salvation of mankind through the Messiah!

There are countless other foreshadowings in the Old Testament. And of course, many prophecies that directly foretell what the Messiah would be like and would do. See if you come across any in your daily reading. 

When I read through the OT, often I am struck by how God hid little hints and sneak previews about His great plan of salvation in the least expected places! Our God has a keen sense of humour…

THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT

Besides, we are by no means Jews. The Mosaic Laws were meant specifically for the Jewish race. Paul speaks out many times in his letters against those factions who would force Christians to follow the old traditions such as circumcism in order to be saved. Nobody can ‘do’ anything to save themselves. All that is needed for salvation is the belief that Jesus has already saved you.

And what is the conclusion? That we can ignore the Ten Commandments? That it’s okay to murder, steal, kill and adulterize? That God permist us to worship other ‘gods’? After all,  we’re saved by faith no matte what we do, right?

Well, put it this way: Jesus never broke ANY of the Laws in His time. In fact, at his trial before the Sanhendrin, He was blameless of any accusation. The only true act that was ascribed to Him was claiming divinity, which is extreme blasphemy and punishable by death – but it was true He was divine!

What Jesus taught us was to follow not the exact letter of the Law, which can easily be abused (by the Pharisees in His time, and by OJ Simpson’s lawyers in our time)… But to follow the spirit of the Law, what it intends to accomplish.

And what is the spirit of the Law?

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:34-40)

It’s so simple, yet so hard to carry out in real life. But if we can follow these two Greatest Commandments, then we can clearly see the correct way to respond to all of the questions in the letter to the Letter to Dr. Laura.

Homosexuality is not just condemned in Leviticus 18:22, but also in Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-271st Corinthians 6:9,  and of course the whole of Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah, particularly verse 5).

Isn’t that more than enough times to clearly see that homosexual relationships are not in accordance with God’s will? We can delve further into this subject by examining the Jewish laws and customs that had been practised during and since the Old Testament times, but I am not very familiar with that.

I shall end the list with the God-ordained example:

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

This is reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6. God intended sexual relations to happen only in marriage between one man and one woman. Two flesh becoming as one. No other ways about it.

And as the saying goes: God made them Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

CONCLUSION

So according to the principle of Two Loves in Balance, what should we say to homosexuals then?

First, do not hate or condemn them. Show them unconditional (but holy) love, just as God showed His unconditional love for us when we still horrible, horrible, evil sinners. That is love for your neighbours.

Second, make it clear that although God loves them unconditionally, He also loes them too much for them to continue living in sin. It breaks His heart to see them not living their lives the way He intended (which is the best way, if the guy who created everything is any judge). Homosexuality just cannot be accpeted as sinless. That is love for God.

God gave us guidlines to live by… But He also gave us hearts and minds. And most importantly, He gave us Jesus as an example of how to live our lives, and Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us every second of our lives even today.

I hope I’ve given you a better understanding of how Christians think and behave (well, at least how they are supposed to), and the reasons why. May God bless you as you follow the Holy Spirit of the Law!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

61 Responses to “Response to the Letter to Dr. Laura on Homosexuality”

  1. AngryYoungChild Says:

    Hey, Just wanted to say this is a good post. Helped me a whole lot to understand…!

  2. GayAndConfused Says:

    Hey I know this was written a while ago.

    I was raised a Christian, but I am also a homosexual. This isn’t something I can help nor is it something I want.

    According to your post then I sin everytime I think of another guy, but I can’t help it anymore than you are attracted to women. What then am I supposed to do?? I can’t force myself to like women because I have no attraction to them. I don’t seek a relationship because I don’t want to lie to someone to try to “turn myself straight”

    What then do I do? According to your post, I will never inherit the Kingdom of God. I am sinful and will never be cleansed according to your post. So what is the point of me pursuing my faith then?

    I am sick and tired of ignorant people preaching about how homosexuality is a sin but you offer no way out of it. I can’t just “turn” straight. It’s the way I was born. I was raised a Christian since birth, so you cannot argue that my surroundings have caused me to become gay and it is NOT a choice of mine.

    Everyday I am struck with the turmoil and I ask myself if I can ever really truly be a Christian because I am filled with affection for other men. I long for a relationship with another man with every fiber of my being. I abstain from one for the sake of what is written in your post.

    If homosexuality is a sin, then answer me this. Why. Was. I. Born. A. Homosexual? If God truly loves me, why does he not just snap his fingers and change my sexual orientation? It’s not like I WANT to be gay. I dont WANT the humiliation and secrecy and lies that come with it.

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    GayAndConfused, we each have our own shortcomings and struggles to face. There are Christians who were are alcoholic, Christians who have extremely active sex drives, Christians who like very young girls.

    Even for myself, a typical guy, my mind can easily wander to thoughts of women. That is completely natural (as far as sin-corrupted biology goes), but it is also a sin. So I must avoid it.

    Every now and then, the ‘natural’ instincts will kick in. That is not our fault. As my pastor has said, when a pretty girl walks by and all the guys glance at her – that’s what guys do! But if they keep on staring and ogling and fantasising – that becomes wilful sin.

    So what you can do is apply that to your own circumstance – it’s automatic for you to have an attraction to guys. But after that automatic response, deny yourself any further relishing.

    You’re only conciously sinning when you conciously choose to do something – and Jesus’ blood will forgive any sins you repent of, no matter how many times they strike without warning.

    You will be cleansed of your sins. You will be saved. There is no sin that Jesus cannot forgive save wilfully rejecting His offer of salvation (i.e. grieving the Holy Spirit).

    So you fall a thousand times – you pick yourself up a thousand times.

    Heck, I’m no saint – I have a long history of sexual sins. I still fall into them occassionally. But I repent of them, again and again, and try harder the next time.

    Our God is a faithful God of love. All He wants to see is the desire to try, the intention to please Him, the effort to do better, and He will not let our sacrifices be in vain.

    God is not to blame for a screwed up sexual attraction. All these problems were caused by the corrupting, mutating touch of sin – and perhaps the devil’s fallen influence.

    God can snap His fingers and fix all that – as well as every other problem in the world. But He chooses not to, and there is a reason for that.

    Can you have a relationship with men that does not involve sexuality? That is what every man actually needs – intimate relating with men as well as women, but just not in a sexual capacity. (Again, compare to a straight Christian man – he can’t have sexual relations with any woman other than his wife.)

    I would introduce you to Edmund Smith. He was a flamboyantly homosexual man, and enjoyed the love of other men. But he found his way out of it (not easily at all, I must add) and now runs a help program for gays and lesbians who just want company, intimate friendship, acceptance and – only if they personally want it – a helping hand to leaving homosexuality behind.

    His blog – http://rlm.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/

    Real Love Ministry – http://www.r-l-m.com/

    (Note: There are many who oppose his work, especially among homosexuals who choose to accept their lifestyle as perfectly okay. But there are also many who have been helped to find their way out of homosexuality.)

  4. Linda M. Says:

    OK, you say that if you look at women for a long time, that is a sin. But, further, (you didn’t say but the Bible says it), that if you marry, you will not be sinning if that look is for your wife. So, how can homosexuals not sin? No way out for them since they can’t marry. And since your brand of Christianity apparently does not condone living together in a committed relationship, and, since, there is no way homosexuals can “marry, rather than burn” it appears you have put them in a place that I can’t believe a loving God would approve of. You’re not loving the sinner but hating the sin. You are hating anything to do with homosexuality as it allows you to condemn anyone who acts out their God-given urges and who you will not allow to marry to avoid “sinning.”

    Please read this testimony by a homosexual. What he describes is all too common and is a consequence, I believe, of the condemnation of homosexuality that brings about the hateful behavior of so-called “Christians.”

    http://suquamishucc.org/action/worship-service-times/2010-11-14

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    So, how can homosexuals not sin? No way out for them since they can’t marry. And since your brand of Christianity apparently does not condone living together in a committed relationship,

    Exactly Linda, nowhere in the Bible does the notion of two men marrying or two women marrying ever appear. From the Old Testament up to even Jesus, marriage is between a man and a woman. (See Jesus’ words section here for citations.)

    Coupled with the ban on extra-martial sexual activities, which Jesus made even stricter, it is clear from a Biblical viewpoint that sexual acts between two men or two women are never permissible. (And that’s without even going into the passages specifically warning against homosexual acts.)

    it appears you have put them in a place that I can’t believe a loving God would approve of.

    Using your own argument that, one could similarly say that kleptomaniacs, compulsive liars, serial killers, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, zoophiliacs, and people in love with their own siblings are simply acting out their God-given, uncontrollable urges and shouldn’t be discriminated against. Does that make sense to you?

    If a person is living in sexual sins, or stealing, or lying, or blaspheming, or addicted to drugs… Is the loving thing to leave them in their ways? Or is the true loving thing to inform them of God’s plan, God’s love, God’s forgiveness, and God’s offer of redemption?

    I’ll tell you what a loving God doesn’t approve of. It is people living in sin despite every clear instruction He has given in the Bible, and furthermore justifying their actions by saying “My lifestyle is what a loving God would approve of you know”… Despite that lifestyle being exactly the opposite of what God says He wants in the Bible!

    You’re not loving the sinner but hating the sin. You are hating anything to do with homosexuality as it allows you to condemn anyone who acts out their God-given urges and who you will not allow to marry to avoid “sinning.”

    I strongly disagree that I ‘hate the sinner’. It is out of love that I try to inform homosexuals that they are not living in accordance with God’s stated guidelines for living life.

    Seriously, tell me WHAT hateful behaviour I have shown towards homosexuals. Don’t jump to conclusions and lump me into the same category of whatever misguided folk you have met before.

    You are also in error in assuming that God is the one who gives homosexuals their same-sex attraction. Without going into the nature-nurture debate, even if sexual orientation is 100% genetically caused, you are forgetting the corrupting effects of sin on God’s original plan. God intended for adult men to be attracted to adult women, not to other men or prepubescent girls or animals or inanimate objects. (Again, see this post, God’s words section for citations.)

    ———————-

    Please also read this testimony by a formerly homosexual man, who discovered God’s true plan and purpose for men and women, and founded a ministry that has helped countless homosexuals voluntarily turn back to God’s original plan.

    http://www.r-l-m.com/testimony2009-ed.htm

    And there are more testimonies of ‘born homosexuals’ who weren’t really born that way… Like two brothers whose mother left them at a young age. One hated women and ‘discovered’ his ‘inborn’ homosexual preference, while the other married a much older woman.

  6. adia Says:

    So funny, some stuff needs to be changed for this time, and day

    p.s i know this is old

  7. Ovadiah Says:

    It is not just the Hebrew Scriptures that contains arcane laws that are not followed today. For example, most divorcees who separated for reasons other than sexual immorality do not remain single, rather choosing to live adultery and how many of you, when your neighbor steals your watch offers him your coat as well? The bottom line in that fundamentalists exist in all faiths and all of them have their pet doctrine. Sin is sin so let he who is without cast the first stone. Otherwise, try pulling that plank from your own eye before “helping” your neighbor with his splinter.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Agreed that many divorces are not due to sexual immorality. However, the real sad thing is that so many divorces ARE! If people were faithful and true and Christlike in behaviour, divorces would not be sought after at all.

    As for not resisting an evil man, note that in a just society, the worngdoer will get his comeuppance and the stolen goods returned to the victim. Thus the victim will receive justice at no loss, compared to if he fights back and becomes guilty of bloodshed. In the spiritual context, we are to let vengeance be the Lord’s – in this or the next life. Everything we lose for Christ’s sake will be repaid a hundred fold. Indeed, many martyrs today lose their jobs, homes, posessions, freedom and even lives because they follow Christ.

    Also, it is injustice to see someone helpless being robbed – we are to uphold to cause of the needy and strenghthen the hand of the poor. What kind of Christian would stand idly by and let a girl be raped, or a widow be robbed, or a nation of people be tortured and killed?

    As for not judging, I’ve already covered that here. The fact that ‘no one is perfect’ does not preclude sinners from continuing to live in sin, nor does it forbid believers from encouraging one another to stay on the narrow path.

    Indeed, Ezekiel 33 is all about those who know about the impending disaster (e.g. from sinful living) and do nothing to warn others away from the path to ruin. Those who neglect to give warning will be considered guilty of neglect!

    In conclusion, if you want to go all Bible-verse-fu, at least get an orange belt first before jumping into the arena.

  9. Ron Says:

    What kind of Christian would stand idly by and let a girl be raped, or a widow be robbed, or a nation of people be tortured and killed? ~Scott

    I’m more interested in knowing what kind of omni-deity would allow these sort of things to transpire without intervening.

    As for not judging, I’ve already covered that here.

    James 4:11-12

  10. Charles Says:

    I’m kind of surprised any educated person would still believe in this religion horsesh*t…

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    These educated persons started out as Christianity-bashing skeptics, and when they did their own research, ended up believing.

    Many physicists conclude from their study of the cosmos that an intelligence – if not a God – must have had a hand in it all.

    Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, and Pauli are examples of the countless renowned scientists who believed in God.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    The same kind who doesn’t smite all mockers, not quite yet.

    Contrast James 4:4. Looks like non-believers are fair game!

  13. Ron Says:

    The same kind who doesn’t smite all mockers, not quite yet.

    In other words: a non-existent one. Because any god who disinterestedly watched people suffer would be a monster.

    Looks like non-believers are fair game

    Show proper respect to everyone (1 Peter 2:17)

    Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. (James 3:13)

    And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. (2 Timothy 2:24)

    Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. (Titus 3:1-2)

  14. Ron Says:

    Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Mendel, Pasteur, Planck, and Pauli are examples of the countless renowned scientists who believed in God.

    Right. All people who existed before the modern age of science. Were they alive today, how many would still be believers?

    BTW, Newton also didn’t believe in the Trinity and practiced alchemy. Does that make him right on both those things?

  15. tv Says:

    Just as Christ took the Old Testament seriously—as the word of God—so I must take it seriously as his follower. Taking it seriously, however, means I must make proper distinctions about the various types of laws found in the Old Testament. (This isn’t merely the Christian understanding, by the way. It’s a Jewish understanding as well.) Old Testament law falls naturally into a number of different categories, and those categories matter. The political, economic, or judicial laws, for example, applied directly to ancient Israel when the people of God were a single nation. In Christ, however, the church is transnational (1 Peter 2:9-10; Revelation 7:9), so they don’t apply directly to the church today. Then there is what’s called the ceremonial law, involving issues of purity and diet which were explicitly given to make God’s Old Testament people separate from the surrounding pagan nations (Deuteronomy 4:5-8; Mark 7:15-19; 1 Timothy 4:3-5). The New Testament makes clear that Christians no longer have to regard certain foods as unclean, but we are called to a life of holiness. The sacrificial laws were fulfilled in Christ, who came as the ultimate sacrifice, the Lamb of God (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 9:11-10:18). The New Testament insists that Christ fulfilled the sacrificial law, yet interestingly, the ceremonial language is used to describe the Christian’s life of faithfulness. We are to present not a lamb, but ourselves as “living sacrifices” (Romans 12:1), and our worship of God is called a “sacrifice of praise” (Hebrews 13:15; see also 1 Corinthians 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:6; 1 Peter 2:5). Taking Old Testament sacrificial law seriously as a Christian means I understand it as no longer directly applicable because in Christ it finds it’s final fulfillment. And finally there is the moral law, echoed in both Old and New Testaments, and summarized in the Ten Commandments. As a Christian I believe it reveals a basis for ethics. The Old Testament laws dealing with homosexual behavior are part of the moral law and are echoed in the New Testament (Romans 1), unlike, for example, the ceremonial food laws which are repealed (Acts 10). And though I reject public denunciations of certain sins as “abominations,” I believe the moral law of the Bible reflects a deep understanding of what it means to be human, providing a basic ethical framework for living together in community before the face of God.

  16. Universal Judaism Says:

    I’ve written a response here, from a Jewish perspective: http://universaljudaism.hubpages.com/hub/response-open-letter-dr-laura

  17. bob Says:

    jesus is a fag

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    How uncivil of you to use a homophobic slur. You must be one of those hate-filled, stone-throwing bigots I hear so much about.

  19. jason hates Says:

    If homosexuality is unnatural, how is it that there are homosexuals in the animal kingdom? You find same sex matings in almost every species on the planet. If it occurs in nature, how then is it unnatural? Unusual? Yes, most species including humans only have about 10% homosexuals so it is not normal. It would not be good for the species if everyone was homosexual as then the population could die out, but as I said before only about 10% of any species is homosexual so I don’t think we are in any danger of any of those species dying out. Of course with humans there is artificial insemination so we really could all be homosexuals and could still thrive as a species. There would probably be less overpopulation and less children born into unwanted situations. Abortion would disappear almost completely except in the most extreme of medical situations endangering the mother. All children would be desired and not accidents that lead to abuse or abandonment. No unwed teenaged mothers etc…Actually having the entire population be homosexual sounds pretty darn good to me. Sadly it will never happen as straight people are born straight. They can’t help their unnatural desires so we will have to just love them anyway. All of you people who are here to try to find the best arguement to justify your bigotry to people around you are sad and pathetic. Researching the best way to try to “win” and arguement about how it is cool to treat other people as second class citizens is gross and unjust. You are actively trying to find better ways to screw gay people, take away their rights and prevent them from getting equal rights under the law. All of this nonsense is based on your out of date, made up religion and not on science or law. Oh by the way, please don’t pray for me. Whenever I hear a christian say “I’ll pray for you” it is always said in a tone of voice that makes one strongly believe that they meant to say something much less refined and much more offensive. That phrase always seems to come out sounding like an insult. It sounds like you mean that you are going to go to your special little building to sit and think for an hour or more about how much you hate someone and want them to either change to be more like you so that you can like them or wish they would die so you can never have to deal with them again. It’s sad and delusional how you people need this imaginary religion to get through your lives. Wouldn’t it really be better if wer were all good people becase it’s the right thing to do, not out of some fear of a boogeyman who will punish us if we break any of a convoluted set of nonsensical rules? When any group of humans live in the same area there is a basic societal agreement that comes into play. We all agree to not harm or waste the time or resources of each other so that we can help each other to live better lives. Everything falls into this agreement. Murder=do not harm. Steal=do not waste time or resources. Cheat=do not waste time or resources. Abuse children or spouses=do not harm. Prejudice=wrong if it leads you to harm or waste the time and resources of another. Tell lies=do not waste time or resources. Envy=not covered as long as your emotions don’t lead you to harm or waste the time or resources of another. Envy can lead to you making decisions to work harder to have more resources to be more like the one you envy. As long as it stays a strong motivator to work harder then it is fine. Marry a man instead of a woman=not covered as it doesn’t harm or waste time or resources. The only real rules that need to be followed are covered under that basic societal agreement. All the rest of this flowery nonsense is just that, nonsense. It’s all religiously sanctioned prejudice and bigotry. It’s someone saying that hating people who are different than you is OK. Well it isn’t. At all. You have my word on it. Being a jerk to people for no other reason than they are different than you is wrong. So stop it. Stop harming and stop wasting time and resources of others. The mormon church gathered millions of dollars from their followers to work so hard to make prop 8 happen. Millions of dollars used to harm others. Millions of dollars of resources wasted to harm others. THAT IS A SIN! Think of how many homeless could be clothed, fed, sheltered and trained for jobs with all that money. Think of how many hospitals could be built, homes damaged by natural disasters being repaired, medical research funded or even just plain old repairs and updates to public roads. Was it really worth it to waste all of that money to just hurt some gay peoples feelings? The laws are going to change everywhere eventually. Every generation is less hateful and stupid than the last so gay people will eventaully have equal rights under the law. So spending all that money to no end other than pain is really stupid, mean and wasteful. Stop wasting time and resources for no other purpose than to harm others. This is the most basic of rules for humanity and you people are breaking the rules. STOP IT!!!

  20. Scott Thong Says:

    If homosexuality is unnatural, how is it that there are homosexuals in the animal kingdom? You find same sex matings in almost every species on the planet. If it occurs in nature, how then is it unnatural?

    It is ‘natural’ in the sense of ‘no humans need to be involved’. But it is not ‘natural’ in the sense that ‘this is the norm and the ideal circumstances, the way it is supposed to be’.

    For example, you can find wild animals getting cancer, or snakes with two heads, or frogs with six legs. All these happen without human influence, so they are ‘natural’ in the first sense. But can you tell me that they are ‘natural’ in the sense that animals are supposed to have cancer, or supposed to have two heads or extra legs?

    Similarly, can you really say “Natural selection, survival of the fittest and the selfish gene all point towards a sexual preference that leads to extinction and the self-termination of genes”??? Sounds ridiculous, isn’t it? It’s the exact opposite of that Darwinistic evolution stuff!

    —————————-

    Unusual? Yes, most species including humans only have about 10% homosexuals so it is not normal. It would not be good for the species if everyone was homosexual as then the population could die out, but as I said before only about 10% of any species is homosexual so I don’t think we are in any danger of any of those species dying out. Of course with humans there is artificial insemination so we really could all be homosexuals and could still thrive as a species.

    This ignores the elephant in the room – if homosexuality is ‘natural’ and also genetically determined (as the proponents of homosexuality argue), then HOW ARE THE GENES FOR HOMOSEXUALITY PASSED ON?

    As you yourself admit, if every individual of species were homosexual they would all die out.

    But the thing is, ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE HOMOSEXUAL – so how come the genes they carry (that make them homosexual) don’t die out? Wouldn’t homosexual animals never have offspring – except by ‘cheating’ through heterosexual relations – thus ending the homosexual genetic line in one generation?

    Or is homosexuality also caused by other, external factors? Which is to admit that sexual preference CAN be influenced and changed?

    —————————-

    There would probably be less overpopulation and less children born into unwanted situations. Abortion would disappear almost completely except in the most extreme of medical situations endangering the mother. All children would be desired and not accidents that lead to abuse or abandonment. No unwed teenaged mothers etc…Actually having the entire population be homosexual sounds pretty darn good to me.

    Well since we’re looking at the worst of heterosexuality, let’s look at the worse of homosexuality and apply it to the entire population like you say.

    With the entire world’s population at 7 billion, almost one third of all people (28.54%) would have HIV/AIDS, that is almost 2 billion people… Instead of the current only 33.3 million or 0.48% – because HIV/AIDS is 60 times greater among homosexual men. Even if we restrict our thought experiment to men only, that still means 1 billion men of the all-homosexual planet would be HIX-positive.

    Also, syphilis would be 50 times more widespread.

    Meanwhile, domestic violence would increase 3000%, cheating would be 19 times higher, and 85% of partnerings wouldn’t last past 11 years.

    The latter would cause 14 times more rape and 20 times more prisoners among the children.

    Even sperm donor kids are 146% likelier to be criminals (which is a necessity for lesbian couples to conceive).

    Some utopia that would turn out to be!

    —————————-

    Sadly it will never happen as straight people are born straight. They can’t help their unnatural desires so we will have to just love them anyway.

    I disagree with the premise that sexual preference is purely inborn – for the reason of ‘cannot pass down genes’ above, and also because of testimonies of people who were formerly straight/gay and then flipped to the other preference.

    —————————-

    All of you people who are here to try to find the best arguement to justify your bigotry to people around you are sad and pathetic. Researching the best way to try to “win” and arguement about how it is cool to treat other people as second class citizens is gross and unjust. You are actively trying to find better ways to screw gay people, take away their rights and prevent them from getting equal rights under the law. All of this nonsense is based on your out of date, made up religion and not on science or law.

    First of all, if you’re here about civil rights issues, you’re barking up the wrong tree. My stand is very simple and clear cut – let people do whatever the heck they want, just don’t

    1) Try and claim it is Christian and change Christianity to suit your preferences,
    2) Push it down our children’s throats (literally or figuratively).

    Find me ONE INSTANCE on my entire blog where I say “Ban homosexuality!”. Go ahead, show me.

    But anyway, what about all the poor incestuous couples (especially those with no chance of conceiving), polygamists, zoophiliacs and bestials, even necrophiliacs that are discriminated against? If religion is to blame for all these, then tell me why liberals, atheists and homosexuals feel disgust at these practices and uphold laws banning them.

    After all, the argument is that homosexuality is okay because it is between consensual adults and doesn’t harm anyone (the latter notion which my citation of HIV, abuse and breakup rates should dispel!). Why ban incest and polygamy and so on if they are between consensual adults and no one gets hurt?

    —————————-

    Oh by the way, please don’t pray for me. Whenever I hear a christian say “I’ll pray for you” it is always said in a tone of voice that makes one strongly believe that they meant to say something much less refined and much more offensive. That phrase always seems to come out sounding like an insult. It sounds like you mean that you are going to go to your special little building to sit and think for an hour or more about how much you hate someone and want them to either change to be more like you so that you can like them or wish they would die so you can never have to deal with them again.

    That’s your personal opinion. You must have had run ins with the Westboro type of hateful religionists – you obviously don’t seem much exposed to the many Christians and Christian groups which rely on genuine, heartfelt, caring love to reach out to homosexuals. They do not demand that homosexuals change or get out – instead, they love unconditionally and hope that this will show a bit of the love of God.

    —————————-

    It’s sad and delusional how you people need this imaginary religion to get through your lives. Wouldn’t it really be better if wer were all good people becase it’s the right thing to do, not out of some fear of a boogeyman who will punish us if we break any of a convoluted set of nonsensical rules?

    Well as I showed above, there are very real, WORLDLY consequences to homosexuality. Let alone the spiritual results of going against God’s recommendations. It’s not that God WANTS to punish us, it’s more like He knows exactly what is in store for us at the end – like a parent warning the children not to jump off a skyscraper because there is death at the end of the trip.

    And note that atheist regimes were pretty strict on that whole ‘no homosexuality’ thing too.

    —————————-

    When any group of humans live in the same area there is a basic societal agreement that comes into play. We all agree to not harm or waste the time or resources of each other so that we can help each other to live better lives. Everything falls into this agreement. Murder=do not harm. Steal=do not waste time or resources. Cheat=do not waste time or resources. Abuse children or spouses=do not harm. Prejudice=wrong if it leads you to harm or waste the time and resources of another. Tell lies=do not waste time or resources. Envy=not covered as long as your emotions don’t lead you to harm or waste the time or resources of another. Envy can lead to you making decisions to work harder to have more resources to be more like the one you envy. As long as it stays a strong motivator to work harder then it is fine.

    You gotta tell this stuff to the Occupy crowd.

    —————————-

    Marry a man instead of a woman=not covered as it doesn’t harm or waste time or resources. The only real rules that need to be followed are covered under that basic societal agreement. All the rest of this flowery nonsense is just that, nonsense. It’s all religiously sanctioned prejudice and bigotry. It’s someone saying that hating people who are different than you is OK. Well it isn’t. At all. You have my word on it. Being a jerk to people for no other reason than they are different than you is wrong. So stop it. Stop harming and stop wasting time and resources of others.

    So why is it not considered wasting resources to just have a civil union or informal partnership and be done with it, instead of wasting resources on fighting for the flowery nonsense of a technical point? It’s not like you believe God punishes unmarried sex, so what’s the point of marriage?

    —————————-

    The mormon church gathered millions of dollars from their followers to work so hard to make prop 8 happen. Millions of dollars used to harm others. Millions of dollars of resources wasted to harm others. THAT IS A SIN!

    Pardon me, but I wonder if you would dare speak the same way about the Blacks who overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8 (70% in favour).

    Or are Mormons considered safe targets? Is that prejudice I see?

    —————————-

    Think of how many homeless could be clothed, fed, sheltered and trained for jobs with all that money. Think of how many hospitals could be built, homes damaged by natural disasters being repaired, medical research funded or even just plain old repairs and updates to public roads. Was it really worth it to waste all of that money to just hurt some gay peoples feelings?

    It’s their money – they get to spend it how they like. Didn’t you just go on an anathema-to-Occupy rant earlier?

    It’s not like liberals and the irreligious (O GREAT FRIENDS OF THE GAYS) donate their own time and money much. So even inclusive of all the money ‘wasted on hate’, religious folk still sacrifice far more of their resources for charity.

    And I could use your same accusation against all the pro-homosexual campaigns and gay pride rallies and dressing toddlers in revealing leather and showing them adults masturbating in public… So much time, effort, money that could be better spent educating themselves on how to have SAFE SEX, how to NOT CHEAT ON PARTNERS, how to NOT BEAT UP YOUR ‘LOVED’ ONES…

    ——————————–

    The laws are going to change everywhere eventually. Every generation is less hateful and stupid than the last so gay people will eventaully have equal rights under the law. So spending all that money to no end other than pain is really stupid, mean and wasteful. Stop wasting time and resources for no other purpose than to harm others. This is the most basic of rules for humanity and you people are breaking the rules.

    That’s actually what I’ve said before… How long before the current bigoted generation accepts such progressive truths as bestiality?

    ——————————–

    STOP IT!!!

    USE SOME PARAGRAPHING!!!

  21. Aaron Trask Says:

    Matthew 19:10-12
    10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
    11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.
    12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

  22. Aaron Trask Says:

    Funny, God has been around longer than we can comprehend in our limited realms of time and the Bible has been around for over two thousand years but within the last 50 years the word of God has lost it’s context; so God, who is beyond time and space, wrote laws and creeds that we as humans can stamp as out of time?

  23. God Says:

    Dear Scott Thong

    I never thought Christians are stupid until I read your posts.

    God

  24. Scott Thong Says:

    Dear Troll,

    I’ve had far better trolls than you here.

  25. Ron Says:

    I’ve had far better trolls than you here.

    Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment.

  26. Scott Thong Says:

    A well earned one.

  27. Raliegh Says:

    There is a very good proverb: “The path to hell is laid with good intentions.”

    You are going to be judged by number of lives you will have screwed up with your good intentions. Your burden is much heavier than the rest of us (non-preachy ones). At least we are screwing up with our own lives and no others. Your record when you will be in purgatory, is going to be a list much longer than anyone one of us. Be careful with the being preachy, afterall you acknowledge your own limitations…

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    There is also a very good Biblical passage:

    The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword against a land, and the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not heed the warning and the sword comes and takes their life, their blood will be on their own head. Since they heard the sound of the trumpet but did not heed the warning, their blood will be on their own head. If they had heeded the warning, they would have saved themselves. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes someone’s life, that person’s life will be taken because of their sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for their blood.’ – Ezekiel 33:1-6

    So you’re right, the burden is greater on those of us who lament the ongoing self-destruction and impending doom caused by all the ‘screwing’.

    But on the other matter you’re wrong, all the screwing DOES screw up the lives of other:

    HIV infection rate highest among gay men – 60 times greater than for the general population.

    Syphilis – 50 times greater.

    Homosexual pairs – domestic violence 3000% greater, cheating 19 times higher, 85% of partnerings don’t last past 11 years.

    Sperm donor kids – 177 percent more likely to have a problem with substance abuse, and 146 percent more likely to report having had a run-in with the law.

    Single mom kids – 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children… five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home… Domestic violence was about 40 times more likely among divorced or separated women… single mothers — unwed or divorced — cost the US taxpayer $112 billion every year… after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.

    So that’s other people’s health and lives directly, and societal order and healthcare/welfare affected right there. It’s not just a spiritual or moral hazard, it’s a very real-world one as well!

    But I’m curious, what do you call the good-intent actions of liberals who are busy redefining the 6000 year old idea of a child-raising basic family unit, along with entire epochs of genetic evolution?

    (Throw in fight the fat, cut the carbon, save the smelt, cut the ciggies, support the single mom model, squash the second amendment, amnestize the illegal immigrant, appease the terrorist?

  29. Raliegh Says:

    “Redefining 6000 year old idea of a child-raising family unit.”

    Your knowledge of history is abysmal. But then again, what can one expects from a poor soul who has his history lessons from the bible only. I am sure if you look into history, there have been matriachal societies, polygamist monarchs and aristocrats (even common folk), peredestary practices, etc.

    Polygamy is/was a norm in a family unit, I would love to see you still practise it, and post your countless conquest of women here, to show us that you practise what you preach (you know, the stuff that has been normal for the past 6000 years) :D

    You sure have some weird sexual fetish with regards to morbidity. A bottle is partially filled, a pessimist sees that it is half empty, an optimist sees it is half full, you see it as a possible substitute for American Pie. ;D

  30. Raliegh Says:

    You are libertarian-ish when it comes to healthcare and anti-big government. But when it comes to zeal, that is an exception, you are defining the concept of pseudo-religious communism, which of course trumps Karl Marx’s socio-political communism.

    PS: If you are a monogamist now, it is time to polish up on your womanising skills, and create your on harem. Quick, quick, do it now, before the 6000 year old idea goes extinct.

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    Your knowledge of history is abysmal. But then again, what can one expects from a poor soul who has his history lessons from the bible only. I am sure if you look into history, there have been matriachal societies, polygamist monarchs and aristocrats (even common folk), peredestary practices, etc.

    Ah, but not once in your history lesson do I see a citation of two (or more) men joining together as a husband and husband to raise children.

    Funny how that is.

    Yet today, we don’t see pressure groups loudly demanding the establishment of polygamic or pederastic marriage – legally equal and indistinguishable from ‘bigoted outdated religious zealot man+woman marriage’.

    We don’t see pundits and commentators deriding the backward fundamentalists for discriminating against NAMBLA.
    We don’t see huge rallies carrying SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND HATE signs while attacking supporters of the Multiple-Wives-Ban proposition.

    We don’t see Ultratraditionalist Mormons or Muslims barging into religious gatherings and making out with their multiple child brides, to make a point in front of the stunned congregation.

    Funny how that is.

    Polygamy is/was a norm in a family unit, I would love to see you still practise it, and post your countless conquest of women here, to show us that you practise what you preach (you know, the stuff that has been normal for the past 6000 years) :D

    As has been pointed out before, if marriage between two men should be legalized because it is between willing adults and causes no harm… Then the same argument should apply to polygamy.

    Hey, who knew that those Mormons were so progressive, eh?

    For me, I have a very simple rationale – both the above are wrong in the eyes of God, according to my irrational, superstitious, close-minded religiousity. I’m a Christotfascist right, so that’s all that should be expected of my reasoning abilities.

    What about you? Should forward-thinking liberals push for the acceptance of polygamy? Or do you reject it, you who are rational, reasoned and open-minded? And on what solid-proof, peer-reviewed, indisputably scientifically factual grounds?

    You sure have some weird sexual fetish with regards to morbidity. A bottle is partially filled, a pessimist sees that it is half empty, an optimist sees it is half full, you see it as a possible substitute for American Pie. ;D

    On contraire, if every one of your type would quit sticking hotdogs in buns they don’t belong in, I would have no need to raise these issue.

    You are libertarian-ish when it comes to healthcare and anti-big government. But when it comes to zeal, that is an exception, you are defining the concept of pseudo-religious communism, which of course trumps Karl Marx’s socio-political communism.

    Get your head on straight. As I often to point out to overzealous commentors here, not once in this blog or the comments therein do I advocate imposing my religious laws and doctrines onto the secular public by way of all-encompassing laws.

    My stand is simple and clearly delineated. Do whatever your want, just don’t

    A) Try and claim it is condoned by Christianity,
    B) Get any of it on me.

    The Bible is clear on the eternal consequences, and the data is clear on the temporal consequences. But I’m not about to bust a gut trying to rescue someone who is intent of drowning themself.

  32. raleigh Says:

    You are very presumptious over what is my type or not my type aren’t you? Stereotyping people, I wonder if that is what they teach you when you are/were in school….

    Your rhetoric fails miserably at answering question with regards to matriachal societies, polygamy and peredestary about 6000 year old tradition…. In fact, these factors have been shown throughout history to play a part in child’s development for the better or worse. I am sure the difference in gender roles in a matriachal society will challenge the standard ‘norm’ (of which defined by you) of child raising.

    It is fine by me that you don’t want us to ‘get any of it on you’, whatever that means. You make your blog public and you use tags, so I doubt whether your intention is truely personal and private or out loud and proselytising.

    Scott thong said: “For me, I have a very simple rationale – both the above are wrong in the eyes of God, according to my irrational, superstitious, close-minded religiousity. I’m a Christotfascist right, so that’s all that should be expected of my reasoning abilities.”

    You sum it well, how pointless it is to voice different opinions or for a debate for a certain group of people.

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    You are very presumptious over what is my type or not my type aren’t you? Stereotyping people, I wonder if that is what they teach you when you are/were in school….

    Says Mr.“You are libertarian-ish when it comes to healthcare and anti-big government. But when it comes to zeal, that is an exception, you are defining the concept of pseudo-religious communism, which of course trumps Karl Marx’s socio-political communism.”

    Your rhetoric fails miserably at answering question with regards to matriachal societies, polygamy and peredestary about 6000 year old tradition

    My rhetoric does not aim to address these, for as I mentioned, they are not aggressively pushing to redefine marriage.

    It is fine by me that you don’t want us to ‘get any of it on you’, whatever that means. You make your blog public and you use tags, so I doubt whether your intention is truely personal and private or out loud and proselytising.

    I see no contradiction here. I don’t go to the law to impose my views, I merely share them in the hopes on convincing people.

    Isn’t that the same as you are doing here?

  34. raleigh Says:

    Hmmm, you are the one who is so anti-big government no? You are the one against Obamacare no? I didn’t even state my type, but what is your type is written all over your blog. I have a wealth of evidence from your blog justify my presumption, whereas you have nothing on me. And because you have nothing on me, you decided to use call me names, such as using exceptionally long copied and paste compound adjective to describe me. But fails to answer the premise of my question, that your presumption over what my type is can be wrong. But of course, you would not akcnowledge your faux pas, the best approach is to protect your ego is by name-calling me. ;)

    Anyway, no point debating here, as I mentioned earlier. I will nevertheless forgive you for your ignorance.

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    Hmmm, you are the one who is so anti-big government no? You are the one against Obamacare no? I didn’t even state my type, but what is your type is written all over your blog. I have a wealth of evidence from your blog justify my presumption, whereas you have nothing on me.

    Izzatso? Then can you explain and justify what made you decide that my zeal is decidedly un-libertarian-ish, or how I define the concept of pseudo-religious communism (whatever that is)?

    In fact, you have probably leapt to a conclusion on what I meant by Your type. Tell me, what did I mean by that, o you know know me so well from my blog?

    And because you have nothing on me, you decided to use call me names, such as using exceptionally long copied and paste compound adjective to describe me. But fails to answer the premise of my question, that your presumption over what my type is can be wrong. But of course, you would not akcnowledge your faux pas, the best approach is to protect your ego is by name-calling me. ;)

    As they say, citations please! Shouldn’t be hard for you to do, it’s all up a few paragraphs.

    Anyway, no point debating here, as I mentioned earlier. I will nevertheless forgive you for your ignorance.

    You preemptively forgive my ignorance? How magnanimous of you /sarc

    Hah! Like I haven’t seen this tactic before.

    You claim you know a lot from my blog, then you should also know that many commentors have similarly chosen to mysteriously vanish after claiming victory and accusing me of intractability.

    For the record (and again, as I have said many times before), I have publicly announced my views having been successfully changed by commentors on several issues – including the evidence for evolution and the de facto

    So I reject your insinuation that there is no point in debating further.

  36. Jim Says:

    What I don’t under is why society will accept petophilia as a genetic/mental disorder but can’t apply the same to homosexuality. We accept that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children so why cannot people be sexually attracted to same sex persons. We know that pedophilia is not a choice nor is it heredity. It is a mutated gene that changes the brain chemistry and changes the normally accepted defination of attraction. It would therefore seem that religion has nothing to do with it. The bible was written approx. 300 years after the death of Christ and with the passage of years coupled with human embellichments and the lack of genetic knowledge thr Bible became the only way to condem a practice most felt was wrong or were uneasy with the idea because they had no understanding of how or that a mutation does in fact alter the brain. I like men. I am one. I socialize, play sports, discuss politics, etc. with men but I am not sexually attracted to them. Could I just suddenly decide I am sexually attracted to a man…I don’t think so, I know so. I may be attracted to read headed women and you blonds. I didn’t choose so it just happened, I’m wired by my genetic predisposition. So why can’t you folks believe that gays didn’t choose; it just happened by the very makeup of their brain chemistry. Neither you or I can force love…it happens naturally. So I suggest you people step down from the holy horse you sit on and apply the biology of the human brain.

  37. Scott Thong Says:

    What I don’t under is why society will accept petophilia as a genetic/mental disorder but can’t apply the same to homosexuality. We accept that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children so why cannot people be sexually attracted to same sex persons.

    Uhhhh dude?

    I think it’s kind of the exact opposite, homosexuals are supposed to be accepted by society while pedophiles are still reviled.

    (Unless you’re being snarkily ironic…)

    We know that pedophilia is not a choice nor is it heredity. It is a mutated gene that changes the brain chemistry and changes the normally accepted defination of attraction.

    Where did you get the idea that pedophilia is a spontaneous mutation?

    I mean, even pedophiles can pass on their genes… Very young girls can get pregnant.

    But homosexuals can never pass on their genes unless they cheat…

    The bible was written approx. 300 years after the death of Christ

    For the New Testament perhaps – and that is also heavily disputable.

    As for the Old Testament, it was in existence in full long before Jesus’ time on earth. And it contains many prohibitions against homosexuality – in fact, these Jewish guidelines form the basis for the Christian ones in the New Testament.

    So why can’t you folks believe that gays didn’t choose; it just happened by the very makeup of their brain chemistry.

    Because there are testimonies of men who became attracted to other men as a result of life experiences.

  38. Amanda Says:

    hey scott thong,

    it’s hurtful. isn’t that enough? where are your priorities, man?

    sincerely, all the love in this world

  39. Scott Thong Says:

    My priorities are in defending Biblical truths. If you cannot accept what the Bible says, that is your problem.

  40. Ron Says:

    My priorities are in defending Biblical opinions.

    .

    FTFY

  41. Rod Says:

    Confusion about what the bible (Word of God) says to you is due to the failure to actually read and study God’s Word according to 2nd Timothy 2:15

    Everyone that is alive today lives in the age of Grace. Not under the law as it was when God was directly dealing with the nation of Israel.

    Learn to study and rightly divide what is written to you through the only apostle that has been appointed to us today, the Apostle Paul.

    Here is a bible study on homosexuals that shows what God has already done for them and us and shows what it means to make the choice to live under the law or under the free gift of grace to those that belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    http://dougdoddsbg.com/salvation/homosexuals-be-saved

  42. Scott Thong Says:

    Well said Rod.

    I have written before, that True Christians Support Neither Homosexuality nor Hatred.

  43. telson7 Says:

    http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/answeringtomockersoftheBible.html

  44. Henry Williamsberg Says:

    Omg. I thought this was THE most lost in the dark ignorant site I’ve ever seen…. then u proved it… Pokemon the devil?!?! Christianity was created for control. Jesus WAS real, but the bishops twisted that reality into Christianity. which is for control. the devil was then created to be the opposing evil force so that anyone who WASN’T under the churches control would either be banned from society (for being a “devil worshiper”) or was SCARED into being controlled. ********Ever wonder how EVERY other religion doesn’t have an “evil” side?*********…. Hades in Greek is just the hoarder of souls. not evil at all actually. Osiris, Egyptian? was the god of the “underworld” and vegetation…. how would that god be evil? it GAVE food…. and just to prove Christianity is for control? gay marriage… there is SUPPOSE to be a separation between church and state in the USA… and the ONLY reason gay marriage isn’t legal is because of Christianity… (no separation apparently) christian music was the #1 profitable music for 2011….(capitalism at its worst) the pentagram? that was a pagan HOLY SYMBOL… that’s like some other religion saying that your CROSS is THEIR devil… its fucking rude… it has NOTHING to do with Satan…. yet over thousands of years Christianity has conformed hundreds of thousands of people to believe it. and on top of that, to believe that if anyone tries to DISPROVE it (like i JUST did) then its the “devil” speaking from me. I’m not confused. I’m seeing openly finally. I don’t condemn Christians. to each his own. But i do get pretty upset at those who condemn others. Christianity has a lot of good values and insights. taken as a metaphor and a guide for ascending into Christ consciousness? then the bible is amazing. taken literally? the bible and those in power around it are just for control, ignorance, and herd mentality.

  45. Henry Williamsberg Says:

    But its all OK. we are in the age of Aquarius! The age of the female energy. The age of spiritual enlightenment. And the damp dark ignorance of Christianity has already peaked at “believers.” and is beginning its decline… how can something that is “universal truth” come and go like a fad? I personally guarantee without doubt that it will only take HALF as long to disprove and disbelieve as it did to prove and believe.

  46. Scott Thong Says:

    Omg. I thought this was THE most lost in the dark ignorant site I’ve ever seen…. then u proved it… Pokemon the devil?!?!

    If you didn’t notice the context, I was mocking that idea for its ridiculousness.

    Christianity was created for control. Jesus WAS real, but the bishops twisted that reality into Christianity. which is for control.

    I might agree partially that the organized religion (i.e. the church with power centralized in Rome) was used as a tool of control, but not Christianity as a belief system itself. Look at the early church as portrayed in Acts, all the way to before Constantine converted – Christianity was the religion of ‘being discriminated against and slaughtered’.

    ********Ever wonder how EVERY other religion doesn’t have an “evil” side?*********…. Hades in Greek is just the hoarder of souls. not evil at all actually. Osiris, Egyptian? was the god of the “underworld” and vegetation…. how would that god be evil? it GAVE food….

    Uh, do your research dude… Evil as an opposing force against good exists in Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Religion

    Portraying Hades, Anubis or whoever as ‘evil’ such as in Hollywood films is more to cater to a historically illiterate audience’s expectations of standard conflict tropes than anything.

    and just to prove Christianity is for control? gay marriage… there is SUPPOSE to be a separation between church and state in the USA… and the ONLY reason gay marriage isn’t legal is because of Christianity… (no separation apparently)

    What a lousy proof that is.

    Government should actually have no part to play in relationships between people, only in the enforcing of contracts.

    http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/qt/relationships.htm

    Honestly, when in history has ANY civilization had man-man or woman-woman ‘marriage’ as a social or legal concept? Marriage has historically been about starting a family (i.e. children) and preserving bloodlines, not getting society to ackowledge how much two people love each other.

    And good luck with ‘homosexual marriage’ (or indeed, homosexual ANYTHING) if Christians leave the public policy sphere like in Europe, and instead Islam takes over.

    the pentagram? that was a pagan HOLY SYMBOL… that’s like some other religion saying that your CROSS is THEIR devil… its f*cking rude… it has NOTHING to do with Satan…. yet over thousands of years Christianity has conformed hundreds of thousands of people to believe it. and on top of that, to believe that if anyone tries to DISPROVE it (like i JUST did) then its the “devil” speaking from me. I’m not confused. I’m seeing openly finally.

    Well, I don’t know what Christians you’ve bumped into throughout your life. But in fact, the pentagram was used even by Christians once.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram#Christianity

    But I’m curious, how did you disprove it has *nothing* to do with devil worship actually? By merely saying so?

    Because you know what, some devil worshippers went and used the symbol for themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram#Satanism

    Protest what you will, but thanks to them, some people associate the pentagram with devil worshippers.

    In fact, the same thing happened with the upside-down cross – it was actually the symbol of St Peter who was crucified upside down.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_St._Peter#Satanic_and_anti-Christian_imagery

    So please don’t try and pin everything on Christians.

    I don’t condemn Christians. to each his own.

    Yeah, you just insinuate that what Christians believe in is a lie, a conspiracy, rude, controlling and evil.’

    Biiiiiiiig difference there. /sarc

    But i do get pretty upset at those who condemn others.

    You mean, like the way you’ve spent the entire comment condemning Christianity?

    Christianity has a lot of good values and insights. taken as a metaphor and a guide for ascending into Christ consciousness? then the bible is amazing. taken literally? the bible and those in power around it are just for control, ignorance, and herd mentality.

    I am curious, just for arguments’ sake, what parts do you object to being taken literally?

    The part where Jesus says He is the only way to be saved?

    The part where Jesus shares about God and heaven and hell being real?

    Or certain rules and guidelines that the early church leaders seem to expect to be followed literally? It’s quite hard to obey ‘don’t be sexually immoral’ in just a figurative sense, if you catch my drift.

    But its all OK. we are in the age of Aquarius! The age of the female energy. The age of spiritual enlightenment. And the damp dark ignorance of Christianity has already peaked at “believers.” and is beginning its decline… how can something that is “universal truth” come and go like a fad? I personally guarantee without doubt that it will only take HALF as long to disprove and disbelieve as it did to prove and believe.

    Uh, well good luck with that… While Europe and even the USA are experiencing a slowdown in Christianity, Asia and Africa (and even the Middle East!) are experiencing major revivals.

    So your disproving and disbelieving of Christianity may take another few centuries and billion people more than you expect – moreso if the newly revived Third World then sends its fired up evangelists to the declined West!

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/May/Growth-Explosion-Chinas-Christianity-Takes-Root-/

    http://www.worthynews.com/10245-massive-christian-revival-in-middle-easts-most-restrictive-nation

    http://www.cbnafrica.com/news/051002africanrevival.asp

    ————————-

    In conclusion, I think you’ve had some unpleasant encounters with very control-oriented ‘sheeplike’ Christians, or maybe church authority. But not all Christians are like that – there are also ‘to each his own’ ones.

    I am one of those who sincerely believe that God has revealed His excellent advice for people to follow through the Bible – but if people don’t want to follow it, it’s their choice.

  47. Timothy Says:

    This is a well-reasoned argument, but you can’t use the precise wording of a translated text (translated, note, by fallible beings) to make a point as you do in the last section, nor can you assume that God was incapable of predicting the linguistic shift in the word “wife” that would occur if it became appropriate to refer to homosexual life partners using that word.

    If you do want to use the exact wording, I’m going to have to point out that Leviticus in the NIV condems those who have sex with a man as they would have sex with a woman, which is a physical impossibility (since men find it hard to have vaginal intercourse with men), making it somewhat less of a strict prohibition than Romans, which seems nonspecific about the consequences (in the verses you posted – it’s been a while since I read the Bible, so cut me some slack if I’ve forgotten another part), Corinthians, which literally says “it’s fine so long as you don’t mind not getting into heaven”, and the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing, which is ambiguous about whether the issue is homosexuality or rape in the NIV.

    so, the other trouble with semantic argument is that it cuts both ways. words will twist right out from under you, especially if they’re not the words that were divinely inspired in the first place.

  48. Scott Thong Says:

    This is a well-reasoned argument, but you can’t use the precise wording of a translated text (translated, note, by fallible beings) to make a point as you do in the last section, nor can you assume that God was incapable of predicting the linguistic shift in the word “wife” that would occur if it became appropriate to refer to homosexual life partners using that word.

    I disagree – we have to use the correct hermeneutics, in this case, that ‘a word cannot mean today what it never meant at the time of writing’.

    Otherwise, we could be arguing for ridiculous interpretations such “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch” (Luke 5:4) is actually Jesus saying to have sex when you’re in despair and disappoint the online world for a problem.

    Simply put, a wife was always and only a female partner of a man. There was simply no concept of male-male ‘marriage’ in the contemporary local culture that Jesus preached in.

    —————————-

    If you do want to use the exact wording, I’m going to have to point out that Leviticus in the NIV condems those who have sex with a man as they would have sex with a woman, which is a physical impossibility (since men find it hard to have vaginal intercourse with men), making it somewhat less of a strict prohibition than Romans, which seems nonspecific about the consequences

    A bit literal here, perhaps? Most hearers would understand it to mean ‘Guys mustn’t get the sexay on with other guys like they get it on with chicks’ in general. In fact, the word used is ‘lie‘ which, if you want to take it uber-literally, would prohibit even taking a innocent nap next to another guy – let alone naked, wriggling and moaning together.

    In fact, the Jewish and subsequent early Christian standards were quite exacting – no improriety of any sort, whether full blown sex or not, unless between husband and wife. Hence Jesus’ statement that even looking with lust = adultery in the heart.

  49. Rene Says:

    This discussion is just incredibly stupid… So stupid…

  50. SettledOnAtheism Says:

    Despite being raised in a devout Catholic family and attending Catholic primary and secondary schools, after some conscious assessments, I have come to embrace atheism.
    For one thing, I could never and still cannot accept that an inherently ‘good’ God could possibly allow the levels of suffering present in the world to continue to be the case.
    This is amplified when you try to reconcile a inherently good God allowing perfectly innocent female children to endure the horror of a bushfire raging towards them at 60 km/h and then the extended agony of being consumed by the inferno.

    My logical mind tells me that if there is a God, he can only be a inherently BAD god, for otherwise he would be moved by a sense of compassion to assist humanity in its struggles with pain, injustice, understanding the universe around us and our place in it and with the general ‘human condition’ tied to adversity and hardship.

    My final assessment is that, if there is an entity with God like powers in existence within the universe, then unfortunately, he/it simply could not care less about us petty humans as a race, let alone as individuals… he/it must be otherwise preoccupied.

    Further, I do not believe that a belief in a magical man in the sky who is omnipotent and so is always watching my actions is necessary for me to live a virtuous and productive life while harming as little as possible on this earth while I remain sentient and secular.

    I point to myself as proof that possessing morals and ethics is possible without the influence of any religion. I believe human nature to be essentially good once the instinctive and essential needs for basic survival are met and I believe myself to be highly moral. I consciously try to live by the Christian ten commandments because they strike me as irrefutable natural truths to achieving harmony among men, a fulfilling existence and as little human suffering as possible.

    The problem with Christianity though is that which Gandhi stated so insightfully which was “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, they do not reflect your Christ”

    This is manifest throughout history by the deplorable and shameful acts of the church. The inquisition, the conquests, all the other holy wars fought in the name of God. The torture chambers, the burning of witches, the contemporary revelations of widespread paedophile priests and the initial reaction to attempt to cover-up the abuses instead of help the victims, the age of consent for sexual intercourse in Vatican city being only 14 years old, The forcing upon nations of the Christian way of life by force and blood where necessary, the rorts of the tele-evangelists like terry baker, The exorcisms, the excessive and unnecessary exorbitant wealth of the church while people are starving to death, the revelations of the DaVinci code, the widespread use of corporal punishment against small children in schools, the subjugation of females until the last 70 years, the role the church played in the ‘adoption’ of children worldwide by forcefully removing them from their mother all while heaping shame on the mother, the tendency even operational practice to indoctrinate children from a young age into the Christian belief without equal representation of alternate belief systems being taught, the fact making religious beliefs a necessary laughing stock that only one of the 200 or so religions in the world can have the correct god and therefore most likely 199 to 1 you are worshipping a false god and I could go on and on and on and on ten fold.

    I don’t hesitate to state that the MAJORITY of this worlds conflicts occur because of immoral persons, often identifying as Christian people, who believing themselves to acting morally illegitimately attempt to enforce upon other sovereign individuals a certain way of life, or code of conduct, or belief in some magical deity that apparently lives in the sky. If everyone would simply truly respect the timeless truth of the commandment to treat others as you would like to be treated in their everyday actions, then ‘conflict’ could not possibly exist on this planet, it would cease to exist an any form instantly.

    At the end of the day I ask you this:

    Why did you not respond directly by way of direct counter argument to the very specific instances of proven by reference to the bible itself obvious endorsement, even obligation to injustice, cruelty, murder etc that the letter to Dr Laura cleverly brought to light ? you instead pointed to unrelated, passages of the bible in an indirect counter argument and those passages were unclear in wording anyway. Just directly show why and where specifically, referencing specific passages from the bible that prove the quoted statements in the letter do not exist in the bible and that therefore the letter is wrong…. if its wrong that is.

    And I add one more shocking truth to Dr Laura’s letter that many don’t realize. I add this not in malice, but as a necessity to the debate given that it is factual information which is:

    God was a paedophile (according to today’s laws) by impregnating a 12-13 year old girl (the age the bible itself confirms Mary was when she conceived baby Jesus).
    And Joseph was a ‘deadbeat dad’ who could not provide adequately for his family such that three wise men had to step in to fill the void and he eventually ran out on Mary and Jesus thus completely failing in his parental duty.

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    For one thing, I could never and still cannot accept that an inherently ‘good’ God could possibly allow the levels of suffering present in the world to continue to be the case.

    This is an ancient problem, the problem of evil. It has been much discussed and debated. Anything I might be able to add would be redundant, so all I will say is that IMHO God’s reasons and motives are far above our understanding and comprehension – and that humanity brought suffering into this world in the first place.

    ————————

    I point to myself as proof that possessing morals and ethics is possible without the influence of any religion. I believe human nature to be essentially good once the instinctive and essential needs for basic survival are met and I believe myself to be highly moral. I consciously try to live by the Christian ten commandments because they strike me as irrefutable natural truths to achieving harmony among men, a fulfilling existence and as little human suffering as possible.

    But who determines what is absolutely moral or ethical? What if someone disagrees with you about your stand?

    How do we determine ‘moral’ then? By majority? What happens when the majority decides on something that goes against what you believe?

    ————————

    The problem with Christianity though is that which Gandhi stated so insightfully which was “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians, they do not reflect your Christ”

    Yes, that has very often been the sad case. We were already warned that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. You may believe that human nature is essentially good, but I disagree – humans can achieve good despite their fallen nature.

    Note also that Gandhi is nothing at all like the harmless and perfect saint the West thinks he is. I thought that way about him too, until I was enlightened by Hindus and Indians who are actually well versed with his life.

    Apart from his use of mass protests to get his way (in itself a type of coercion), his form of pacifism ignored that the aggressors might use the lack of resistance to complete their conquests. Not everyone is like the cultured (Christian background) British! He advised the Jews to go along with Hitler and rely on the goodwill of Arabs, as well as his own Hindus to give in to Muslims in attack after attack. Let the commoners die if it serves his philosophical vision!

    So probably one of the reasons Gandhi thought highly of Christ but poorly of Christians is because real life Christians didn’t always belly up and wait to die at the first sign of conflict.

    ————————

    This is manifest throughout history by the deplorable and shameful acts of the church.

    IMHO more than outweighed by the good that Christian faith has wrought.

    Or go ahead, name me some atheism-inspired charities. Recommend to me the books which collect the life stories of former drug addicts, alcoholics and hardcore criminals whose lives were redeemed by the teachings of Richard Dawkins. Send me the Youtube links to inspirational films and testimonies where horrendous wrongs are forgiven because the forgiver is convinced that God Does Not Exist. Show me from history that nonbelief results in more good than evil.

    —————————-

    the tendency even operational practice to indoctrinate children from a young age into the Christian belief without equal representation of alternate belief systems being taught, the fact making religious beliefs a necessary laughing stock that only one of the 200 or so religions in the world can have the correct god and therefore most likely 199 to 1 you are worshipping a false god and I could go on and on and on and on ten fold.

    It’s not like parents and teachers are going to fairly and comprehensively cover the gamut of options available in the world and then ask their children which they would like to adopt. Parents, teachers and anyone at all have the natural tendency to want to share what they personally believe to be ‘good things’ – witness the friends who take every chance they get to espouse the benefits of reverse osmosis water, enzyme activated juices, etc.

    So you might as well badmouth parents who are socialists, organic food supporters, gun owners or any other group really.

    As for the 199 wrong and only 1 right, I believe that’s how the rest of the world works – Newton out, Einstein in. Spontaneous generation loses, Pasteur wins. If there can be countless theories competing about what the truth is but only one correct conclusion in the physical world, why a different standard for the metaphysical?

    ————————

    If everyone would simply truly respect the timeless truth of the commandment to treat others as you would like to be treated in their everyday actions, then ‘conflict’ could not possibly exist on this planet, it would cease to exist an any form instantly.

    My thoughts exactly!

    ————————

    At the end of the day I ask you this:

    Why did you not respond directly by way of direct counter argument to the very specific instances of proven by reference to the bible itself obvious endorsement, even obligation to injustice, cruelty, murder etc that the letter to Dr Laura cleverly brought to light ? you instead pointed to unrelated, passages of the bible in an indirect counter argument and those passages were unclear in wording anyway. Just directly show why and where specifically, referencing specific passages from the bible that prove the quoted statements in the letter do not exist in the bible and that therefore the letter is wrong…. if its wrong that is.

    Well, IMHO the main thrust of the letter is not so much that the OT laws are inhumane – rather, it is that modern Christians are depraved to follow such laws. Hence my demonstrating why modern Christians don’t follow those OT laws to the letter.

    But let’s take your thrust, that the laws themselves are unjust, cruel and whatnot.

    I have to ask just as I did above: Who decides that these laws are ‘unjust’ or ‘cruel’? Is it you? Is it modern society?

    The problem here is that you are judging far-above-comprehension God’s absolute laws by mundane, relatavistic, modern (and temporary) human standards. Yes, you may consider stoning an adulterer or homosexual to death to be extreme – and I myself personally consider it so!

    But what about by God’s standards? Against His perfect holiness, EVERY ONE OF US DESERVES IMMEDIATE DEATH AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

    Never mind sexual this or that, have you ever bore a grudge or told a fib? Then you are imperfect. You have shown yourself unworthy of the life that God gave you – free of charge! – and really, God could forfeit the existence you so ungratefully borrow. He would be quite justified to say “That’s it! I’m not bothering to sustain this fellow’s life force any longer!” and you’d simply stop living.

    See? This is what I mean by whose standards you follow when you judge the OT laws, or God’s omnipotent control of world events. You, with your measly decades of limited mental capacity, presume to judge the infinite who created time and space.

    But that’s the Old Testament. The New Testament, what Christians believe, tells us that despite all our unworthiness and ungratefulness – God in the form of Jesus wipes the slate clean. We are now worthy not for anything we have done or will ever do, but because of what God did.

    ————————

    God was a paedophile (according to today’s laws) by impregnating a 12-13 year old girl (the age the bible itself confirms Mary was when she conceived baby Jesus).

    And Joseph was a ‘deadbeat dad’ who could not provide adequately for his family such that three wise men had to step in to fill the void and he eventually ran out on Mary and Jesus thus completely failing in his parental duty.

    Yeesh. For a smug know-it-all, you sure don’t know your sources and drop your logic.

    First, the Bible itself does not state Mary’s age. We can only guess at it from the practices of the time and apocryphal writings.

    And here’s the relativistic standards thing again – a young teen is underage only by our very recent modern standards. The average age of marriage for most of human history – Jewish or otherwise – was around 12. This makes more sense to a privileged modern person when you remember that people lived, worked, had family, and died young for most of humanity’s existence.

    Second, you sound like a Muslim polemic or a liberal ‘comedian’ when you describe the Virgin Birth as God impregnating Mary. What, the same God who created Adam from dust and the universe from nothing MUST rely on base sexual acts to create a baby? Even by internal consistency God has already shown He can create ex nihilo.

    As for Joseph, ever consider that he could have died or something rather than run off? Think about it – this man already proved to be of upstanding and outstanding moral character when he decided against publicly divorcing Mary, which he was in full rights to do. He could have saved himself the burden of raising a child not genetically his own. And if he didn’t stick around and work, why would Jesus be derided as the son of a carpenter?

  52. Edward Says:

    Oh please…..you keep spouting off all these STD infection rates amongst gay men….domestic violence etc etc……and you so desperately try to appear balanced and unbiased. A career as an illusionist is not in the cards……you don’t need Zelda the fortune teller to tell you that one.

    Here’s a stat for you. If you take the ratios of paedophilia and child abuse from the gay population and then from the heterosexual population you’ll find that it is 300% greater in the Heterosexual. Fact.

    I think God would look a lot more harshy on that stat don’t you. You’re the worst kind of bigot….the bigot who pretends to be righteous behind the veil of Godliness.

    Homosexuals do not choose to be so. It is a birthright and one which should be celebrated for its contribution to the wonderful diversity of life. It is not a choice. After all….when did you choose to be straight? No one makes that decision. You act on it because you FEEL it.
    And what you feel is entirely NATURAL.

    It is time for this Nazi-esque persecution of homosexuality to end. We are a tribe that has existed since the dawn of humanity. Those who persecute will answer for their sins.

  53. Edward Says:

    Just to reiterate my point. One of the rare studies undertaken to determine it stated:

    “A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.”

  54. Edward Says:

    And the link.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/666571?dopt=Abstract

  55. Scott Thong Says:

    Homosexuals do not choose to be so. It is a birthright and one which should be celebrated for its contribution to the wonderful diversity of life. It is not a choice. After all….when did you choose to be straight? No one makes that decision. You act on it because you FEEL it.
    And what you feel is entirely NATURAL.

    I disagree with the ’100% nature’ as well as the ’100% nurture’ theories.

    It is time for this Nazi-esque persecution of homosexuality to end.

    Godwin’s Law much? It’s not like I advocate stoning of homosexuals, or heck, even legislation on the matter.

    “A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims.

    Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males.

    Oh wow, a sample of 175.

    And how many of those surveyed were homosexual?

    The possibility emerges that this was a very nonreflective, and possibly biased, study.

  56. Ron Says:

    Or go ahead, name me some atheism-inspired charities. Recommend to me the books which collect the life stories of former drug addicts, alcoholics and hardcore criminals whose lives were redeemed by the teachings of Richard Dawkins. Send me the Youtube links to inspirational films and testimonies where horrendous wrongs are forgiven because the forgiver is convinced that God Does Not Exist. Show me from history that nonbelief results in more good than evil.

    Are you suffering from amnesia? Because I’ve already addressed all of these questions–some on the very threads you’ve linked to in that post.

    Here is the link to the secular charities:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/be-thankful-for-jesus-incredible-self-control/#comment-49082

    A web search for secular charities will turn up dozens more.

    Seek and ye shall find.

  57. Scott Thong Says:

    Well if you want to assist another commentor, there’s no stopping you.

  58. Ron Says:

    No. I’m not here to assist anyone. Edward seems quite capable of handling his side of the conversation on his own. I’m just curious why you would keep repeating the same questions over and over after they’ve already been answered.

  59. Scott Thong Says:

    Sometime I forget that you’ve already said such-and-such.

    Other times, I am addressing a different commentor (rather than everyone in general) and therefore consider the conversation to be starting from scratch. You’ve probably read the same material I use to respond several times over by now right?

  60. Ron Says:

    Call me crazy, but I usually stop asking the same question once I receive an answer that can be verified. What do you gain from repeating the process with each new participant?

  61. Scott Thong Says:

    Cos the new participant hasn’t done it before.

    That’s why I thought you were doing an assist, as otherwise the commentor might have to take the effort to browse around for the answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers

%d bloggers like this: