TennisMenace do you think that anal sex is immoral between men and women, or just between same-sex couples?
A great many early Christians seemed to think it was the former- one Patriarch of Constantinople makes reference to men "committing the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives.
Yes, shops being closed on Sundays was a long time ago and probably it is a combination of acclimating to the idea and also it being such a marginal issue to most americans they would never be able to stop businesses from operating on sunday.
Yes, you are correct, the main objection to SSM is because it involves icky gross anal sex.
But that is also not really the point. Keeping the Sabbath holy is one of the 10 Commandments. Homosexuality is not on the list. For Christians to bring social or legal force against Homosexuality but not against breaking the Sabbath is a bit like a cop letting a bank robber run loose because he needs to go catch a kid spray painting graffiti on the wall of the school gym. Homosexuality is a sin, keeping the Sabbath is a Commandment, the selective application of focus is a staggering feat of hypocrisy.
Ok, ok, I will try to answer this one too, Robert. Here is the nuts and bolts answer to something very complex for many many theologians even.
I believe Jesus will return and establish a Millenium Rule on Earth (1000 yrs). Theocracy will then come to the world and I believe the scriptures state that much of the First Testament Laws given to Israel back then will be re -continued and thus fulfilled in that 1000 yr rule.
In other words, it ain’t over till it’s over. Again, context here- the Mosaic Law was given to the Nation of Israel (not China, not Russia, Not Bolivia, not even USA).
Again, please google NEW COVENANT and have at it. I cannot pass on hundreds and hundreds of hours of study (big grin) in a few posts here. :eek:
There is a specific commandment against sleeping with one’s mother?!?
The commandments make sense, because you interpret what makes sense to you into them. The sixth commandment says “Thou shalt not kill”. Some of the faithful actually take this literally and refuse to kill under any circumstances. They are, however, a minority. Most follow an interpretation that allows them to kill whenever it makes sense to them that it be allowed (in wars, in self defense, as capital punishment …).
The history of Christianity is full of such interpretations. It is also full of changes to these interpretations that often coincide with changing moral standards in society as a whole. Of course every generation of Christians will do their best to apply the interpretaion that aligns best with what they believe to be God’s will. But it would not be entirely unfair to ask of them that they conisder the possibility of having it wrong.
Wow, A wee bit personal, don’t ya think?
But…
I will answer because I think it might help in the discussion.
Answer: Yes, so I won’t partake in such.
I am well familiar with the NEW COVENANT and the prophecies in Isiah and the Jewish tradition of the sacrificial lamb. I know all about all of that. But you are ducking the point. The Earth is still here. As long as it is here not the smallest letter or stroke of a pen of the Law will change.
That sounds pretty unequivocal to me. There is absolutely no ambiguity to the phrase “not the smallest letter or stroke of a pen”.
Hasidic Law and Hasidic lifestyle is an excessively difficult path to follow but Matthew 5:18, the words of Christ himself, are quite explicit.
I do.
And my husband, who is about my age, doesn’t.
The timing of when blue laws were lifted varied a great deal from state to state. I grew up with blue laws, and despite being a Jew (so they were really inconvenient) I sort of miss them. It was nice having enforced rest on the weekend.
Uh, what?
This entire discussion is about sexual morality, so I don’t see how it was excessively personal.
For the record, I don’t know if I would say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to that question (for much of the early church, their condemnation of oral & anal copulation was part of a broader condemnation of nonprocreative sex, which I don’t share). But I think you can make a good plausible case for ‘yes’, and I find the idea that certain sex acts are forbidden, no matter who engages in them, more plausible than the idea that the same acts are OK if an opposite-sex couple engages in them, but not OK for a same sex couple.
I find I can’t take seriously any claim affecting all of Earth that is a mere 1,000 years. It’s like the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides for jury trials “where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars”. That may have seemed like an impressive sum in the late 18th century, but inflation has rendered it trivial. Similarly, a thousand years may have seemed impressive once, but our growing knowledge of the actual age of Earth (~4.5 billion years) makes it seem silly.
Doesn’t Jesus’s exhortation not to expect to be repaid cover it? Is there a scriptural distinction between “stuff Jesus says not to do” and “sins”?
But, if that’s controversial, let’s pick a better one: divorce. Why are Christians not up in arms against it? (Easy answer: because they don’t have prejudices against it.)
Why do Christians fail to follow Christ’s instructions to give up their worldly possessions? Is there a difference in how the Bible treats that compared to homosexuality? (Yes, there’s a big difference: Christ never mentions homosexuality, but he frequently exhorts his followers to give up their possessions. Seems to me that this should make it more of an issue, not less.)
My point is that there is a HUGE fuss among Christians against homosexuality, that is way out of proportion to its coverage in the Bible, compared to lots of things that are covered far more significantly and stressed to a far greater degree, that they ignore.
The simple explanation for this is because the Bible isn’t the reason, it’s merely an excuse.
The question wasn’t whether you engage in it, but whether you think it’s a sin. That’s not a personal question; it’s a theological one. We really don’t care what you do behind closed doors! 
somehow I think this observation is very very very important…
TennisMenace, Robert163, and everyone else:
Take the disputes over reading or interpreting scripture to another thread.
Regardless what (Christian) scripture does or does not say or what it does or does not mean, that is not the topic of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Really? The fact that many Christians selectively choose which bible passages to follow is not part of the topic “Anti-Gay Christians are merely bigots”?
ETA: FOr the sake of board harmony I am willing to let your ruling stand.
Learjeff,
I do agree with you that Christians have made a bigger fuss over homosexuality than it should be. In fact, I said that in one or two of my posts. There are bigger fish to fry if you ask me.
TM
You folks were going well beyond pointing out discrepancies in belief or behavior to get into actual theology.
Good choice.
tomndebb, I am somewhat new to this board, and not certain what’s going on here. Can you please be a little more explicit about what is and isn’t the topic of this thread?
I’m trying to act better 
I apologize Moderator Tom,
I kind of felt like we were (illegally) drifting off topic, but being a new guy in town and not wanting to appear snobbish by ignoring the seasoned Dopers here, I tried to answer all questions thrown my way.
Next time I sense this is happening, I will do my best to deflect the answer.
Thanks for all that you do here,
TM
Yeah, you guys are right, it really wasn’t personal, but I took it personal, didn’t I! :eek: