Sexual Orientation?

[Xiahou]

Fair enough. My personal involvement has definitely left me with a less than objective stance. It is unfortunate to me that most modern Christian denominations selectively apply Leviticus, but I should not have lumped all of them together.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26-27)

Howabout Romans 2:1.. "1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

[miotas]

That could explain alot...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Luckily most Christians I know (what you would call "liberal" Christians I suppose) don't actually believe that the bible is literally true, it's book of metaphors written for people of a less knowledgable time. They don't kill their children when they are disobedient, for example.

As I said, that is part of the judicial law given to ancient Israel as a nation, why would I follow that?

I'm hugely confused Ted does that mean you a Paulian and not a Christian

If by "Christian" you just mean some novel definition of the word that you made up right now to not include Paul's writings as part of the scripture, then yes.

Fun fact... when is the term Christian first applied in the Bible? Answer... to the followers at Antioch, in Acts 11:26, the same verse which describes how Paul came to stay with those same people.

Howabout Romans 2:1.. "1 Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things."

And so by your use of that verse, you just condemned Paul, Matthew, John, the rest of the disciples, and called Jesus a sinner.

If you read on even two verses from the one you quoted, you would see that Paul was condemning the double standards of those he was writing to:

"And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:3)

And if you read further into the chapter, you would see that this double standard was being used by Gentiles, who thought they had not sinned because only Jews were under the law:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12)

And so what Paul said is actually that we are all judged by the same law, whether Jew or Gentile, and not that we should never take any sort of judgment or stance on moral issues whatsoever (for those who try to do that with Romans 2:1 and Matthew 7:1 with the judge not lest ye be judged thing, they are are of course, ironically, passing judgment on you for judging people ).

And his message can be reconciled with various other verses, such as:

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." (1 Corinthians 6:2-4)

Which liberal Christians apparently disagree with.

[Fragony]

It's kinda funny how a text that is claimed to be only to be interpreted can be molded into absolutist rethorical mathematics anyway. It's a collection of texts not a formula.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It's kinda funny how a text that is claimed to be only to be interpreted can be molded into absolutist rethorical mathematics anyway. It's a collection of texts not a formula.

But Fragony, that doesn't fit self-help rhetoric at all: I mean if they're just a bunch of disparate texts you must accept inconsistencies, uncertainty and doubt instead of One True Path to Answers! I mean what use is The Word of God if it is by definition fallible?

[gaelic cowboy]

If by "Christian" you just mean some novel definition of the word that you made up right now to not include Paul's writings as part of the scripture, then yes.

Fun fact... when is the term Christian first applied in the Bible? Answer... to the followers at Antioch, in Acts 11:26, the same verse which describes how Paul came to stay with those same people.

So what your saying is that Paul is more important for you and not your supposed Jesus thats what I'm getting at. Paul is nice and handy for the whole control of large groups of people what with his rules and regs and all that sort of stuff.

Sermon on the Mount bah never mind that lark Paul says blah blah

[Xiahou]

And so by your use of that verse, you just condemned Paul, Matthew, John, the rest of the disciples, and called Jesus a sinner.

How on earth would you arrive at that conclusion? Me quoting a passage that cautions us not to judge others equals me judging the gospel writers and Jesus in your mind?

Matthew 7 is indeed another great example. "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

for those who try to do that with Romans 2:1 and Matthew 7:1 with the judge not lest ye be judged thing, they are are of course, ironically, passing judgment on you for judging people

Once again, I'm puzzled as to how you arrive at this conclusion. There is a huge difference between saying "Passing judgment on others is bad" and "You're passing judgment on others and you are bad." The second is hypocritical and the bible repeatedly cautions against this. Not passing judgment on others is a common biblical theme seen again in John8 "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." The common thread is that we're all sinners (unless you're claiming to be a saint), and as such, we need to concern ourselves with our own failings rather than busying ourselves with condemning others.

[Samurai Waki]

I couldn't care less, I don't think the institution of marriage (In the Judeo-Christian sense) has a place in politics to begin with, as it directly conflicts with the Separation of Church and State. If people want to be joined in a contractual sense then by all means they should be able to seek a Civil Union, gay, straight, or otherwise. If people want to be "married" in the spiritual sense, they should certainly be free to do that as well, of course keeping in mind that it has no actual legal precedence. That way bigots can keep being bigots, and people can shut up about it already...

[Louis VI the Fat]

G...guys...I...I...I have a confession to make.

I'm sorry, but I can no longer live a lie...

You've all seen me act way tough in threads discussing sex or girls. Well, that was just a pose. Sorry. Reality is different. I must come out of the closet. I am not like other guys. I don't like girls. Well I like them of course but I mean I'm not attracted to them. I am:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An anatidaeophile

[gaelic cowboy]

Louis as we say in Ireland "There's no F in Duck"

[Louis VI the Fat]

In that case:

*uck you all.