Sorry, that was supposed to be “Let’s say for the sake of argument, that there IS a heaven, and there IS a God”.
Told ya I had too many beers… 
Well, i think god is crappy then if he simply tells us things without backing himself up. Buddha was much better in this department. He gave you reasons for why you should follow the five precepts.
Ahhhh…But Buddha wasn’t God. 
D&R
You snuck a post in on me - I was responding above to your post to ssk.
Just FTR, I’m bisexual and the Last American Virgin.
See, the problem with this hypothetical is that I have a real problem believing that an Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent Being is going to condemn me for loving. After all, He knew who I was going to love before I did (including the person’s gender), He saw how I treated that person (and how they treated me), and He cares for me in return.
And anyway, didn’t someone once say “God is love”?
SisterCoyote
The problem is that we don’t HAVE a definitive word from God. All we have is a really long book, written by people who were not all that civil or techno advanced, so it is not well thought out.
Example: We have God saying “Do not worship a false God”, yet a few books later, there is some guy named Jesus who is supposed to be “God”.
The answer to this entire thread is…That we have no answer.
Either A) You choose to go by the bible, and be called a “fundie”, or B) You lead a good life, but pretty much do whatever the hell you want, and hope that God understands when you get to the gates. Personally, I take “B”.
All we can do in the meantime, is go by what the book says.
But Buddha also said there was no god. And his book is forty volumes long (in english) and it was all said by him. No one like Leviticus to mess up his teachings or his meanings.
All sins are equal in the fact that any one will make a person less than perfect. For example, if someone kills someone, steals the loaf of bread, or performs homosexual acts. In this case, God sees people breaking his laws and this saddens him, but one who steals and one who is gay is seen no differently - both deserve to go to hell. So, if Ned Flanders kept the pen he used to sign his check at the bank or if Smithers had gay sex, both would have committed sin, and seen as both guilty in God’s eyes.
As a Christian, this is one of the points that frustrates me the most about our world. Not to downplay sin, but we should look at the logs in our own eyes before attacking the splinters in others, we should also remember that we too were once without God. Though I am not excusing something that goes against the ten commandments, I am simply pointing out that many of the acts in “good” people’s lives are no worse than many of those done by “bad” people.
Remember James 2:9 “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
Also, I noticed a lot in that chapter of note regarding so called ‘good’ and ‘evil’ people. I appologize that this is very long, but I hate to use things out of context like the people who quote the rule against mixed-fabric clothing, but understand nothing about context. This is James 2
My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
ssj_man2k:
Okay, here is a possible reason:
According to the Bible, man was created “in the image of G-d.”
That means that through the power of reproduction, human beings are capable of somewhat increasing G-d’s presence in the world.
What follows from this is that the elements that can create human beings contain some degree of holiness.
A wasting of those elements shows a disregard - or even a scorn - for this potential for holiness which was placed in human hands.
How does that grab you?
jcmckaig saith:
Interesting.
The question of why anyone would buy into what the Bible says is the first question to be addressed. And the answer that conservative Christians, and orthodox Jews, would give is that it is the word of God. However, liberal Christians and Jews would reflect that while there may be validity to the “word of God” appelation, the answer is not quite that simple. It’s words of men which God intended, and guided the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia (and the early Church fathers for the Christians) accordingly, that it be taken as guidance towards His will.
In other words, is it a lawbook or a guide to Him? They’d opt for the former; we, for the latter. He didn’t “dictate” it; he inspired it. However, that term is susceptible of multiple meanings. And among the possible reasons for wanting something preserved is how terrible an example it gives. Consider that one can obtain the Articles of Confederation from any reasonably complete library or archive – not because it’s a good way to create a federal country, but precisely because it was tried and failed.
I’m not writing this post with the idea that 2000 years from now, it’ll be preserved among the “sacred writings of St. Polycarp.” (God, I hope not!!) Rather, so that I can convey an idea of how the Bible affects the thinking underlying rational Christianity. And the answer is –
God is. He is, among other things, personal, and active in the world. But not through some supernatural interventions superseding the laws of nature. He created those laws, and He works through them.
He seeks to have humans act morally towards each other, and His creation is so structured that such moral behavior and its antithesis have their rewards. He specified as much in some of His best work – the Torah and the Gospels. How one does this is through love, because that is one of His prime attributes, in that facet of Himself which most resembles humanity. He’s not so much out for judgment as for compassion. This is made clear time after time: Law, Prophets, Writings, Gospels, Epistles – all testify to it.
If you insist on focusing in on that portion of the works He inspired that suggest that nobody whatsoever does His entire Will, and that nothing short of that is acceptable, and He therefore takes on the capacity of judge, but is influenced by the intercession of His Son, Whose self-sacrifice atones for the sins of everybody, then you’ve bought into the fundamentalist, legalistic mindset.
But the Judges of the Jews were not legalists (see the book named that), nor were the ones Jesus spoke of. Judges were men and women who were champions and advocates for their people. And who went through troubles with them. Just as Jesus did. And just as His followers do today.
That’s totally clear to me, and the gist of the message that Scripture presents. Anything else is worth reading but will not give you the handle on living a life pleasing to God and your fellow man that that does, and is therefore secondary.
The idea of God and Jesus as two separate entities both called God is among those misunderstandings of what He is and does. God is wherever you find Him. If you watch with insight the next squirrel that you see, the spark of the divine in it will give you a small insight into how God works. If you read the postings of Sister Coyote, the spark of the divine in her will give you a somewhat fuller understanding of His will. What we Christians say is that in Jesus of Nazareth, the spark of the divine in Him was so overwhelmingly present that we are justified in regarding Him as God present in human form. And therefore as the one, above all else, to which we should pay most attention to see what God wants of us.
And He does not sit in judgment over homosexual people, or “sinners” of any kind. Rather, the people He gets pissed off about are the ones who stand in judgment over their fellow man, and who proclaim rules of behavior as God’s law for them (but who always find loopholes for their own behavior).
So when you say “go by the Bible” you are actually saying, "Go by the legalistic interpretation of the Bible that people who are doing precisely the thing that Jesus condemned are advocating, and follow their rules, because “they’re God’s” in the opinion of those people.
The fallacy of that position becomes obvious.
Perhaps, as Chaim suggests, it is possible for a man to live a life pleasing to God, and to make atonement for his own sins and thus earn the divine forgiveness. That is for that person to decide and do. I do not fault that line of thinking. (Please note that this would be restricted to Jews – including proselytes – since the command to Christians gets more explicit: “Be ye perfect, as the Father in Heaven is perfect.” Chaim would be the first to admit that he does not attain divine perfection.)
However, the command to all Christians is clearly to obey the two great commandments of love, and in doing so to keep the spirit of the law fully. And to seek the forgiveness of a loving Father for failing to do so totally and with every breath and with every fiber of their being.
By this logic, any birth control or having sex without having a child would be a major sin, wouldn’t it? I don’t think many Christians follow that.
I am by no means a believer in the literal truth of the Bible, but it seems evident, ssj_man2k, that if one were a bible believer, presuming to judge the edicts of god according to a human understanding of what “should” be considered a sin would be arrogant in the extreme and would verge upon idolary. God’s intentions would necessarily be beyond our understanding.
Hurts God.
Hurts God.
Hurts God.
Hurts God.
Hurts your parents.
Um…
Um…
Um…Lotta no-brainers in here, huh? 
Hurts the neighbor.
Hurt yourself.
Apparently a lot of old testament commands were sort of recinded (like sacrificing calfs to attone for sins, or whatever) by Jesus. Does anyone know if homosexuality is the only one that wasn’t?
Is the quote truly “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman.” Well, duh. Maybe it’s like an early sex ed course. OK, now one of you turn round and…
That quote was from Leviticus. If you want to use that one, you should also follow all of his other rules, like sacrificing lambs and such. There is a good letter written to Dr. Laura about this, you should read it. I beleive there is a link earlier in the thread.
ssj_man2k:
Well, I can’t speak for Christians, but of course, the part of the Bible that the major homosexuality quote comes from is observed by Orthodox Jews as well.
As for the logic following through, you have to realize that increasing human population is not the only form of “increasing holiness” in the world that justifies the expenditure of the stuff of life. Are you familiar with the term “holy matrimony”? Perhaps you are unaware that in Hebrew, the word for “marriage” is derived from the same word as “holiness.” In religious law, anything that brings a married couple closer together (even if the sex is not inherently procreative) is an increase in holiness in the world.
However, even within these parameters, there are certain methods of birth control that are not allowed (such as condoms) because their use is considered active destruction of sperm, which is prohibited.
Chaim Mattis Keller
And, BTW, there is also a link earlier in this thread to a thread here describing why this “letter to Dr. Laura” is anything but “good.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
You know, it’s a good argument that, for Christians, New Testament law supplanted Old Testament law, and that thus Leviticus’ prohibitions on homosexuality are no different than its prohibitions on eating pork.
The more problematic issue arises in the first chapter of the book of Romans; IIRC, Paul has some stern words for a church whose members engaged in homosexual practices. Short of picking and choosing Bible verses (or, of course, outright rejection of the Bible itself), I’ve never heard a in interpretation of this passage that would make homosexuality compatible with the Christian faith. I would very much like to hear such an interpretation.
I should note at the outset that I’m no fundie: I recognize that many of the things in the Bible aren’t to be taken literally, that many stories are not historical but are meant to illustrate certain truths, etc., etc. But Romans, like most of the New Testament, is a letter from Paul to a church giving them theological instruction. It can’t be dismissed as a mere story or an allegory for something else. For any Christian that takes his or her faith remotely seriously, its passages must be dealt with.
So, can anyone enlighten me?
If you read Paul’s letters thoroughly you’ll discover that basically he didn’t want anyone having sex for any reason, as it prevented a close relationship with God.
IMHO, the man had issues.
However, there is an excellent essay online whose URL I am trying to track down (thought it was in my Favorites, but I was wrong…) that addresses these issues (satisfactorily, to my eye).
Esprix, can you help me out?
My biggest beef is the fact that a lot of people forget one thing about the Bible: it was written by men for men. Men, as in human beings, as in beings who have failed to meet the qualification of being “sinless”.
These men were subject to the prejudices and influences of their times, regardless of how close to they claim to have been and/or how inspired they were by “God”. They were witnesses in the case of Jesus. They told his story, they quoted his quotes. But as far as I know never once has a passage actually been written by Jesus himself. How truthful do we know of the source of these quotes? How free from external influences were these writings?
Not one of us can claim to know what the real meaning of godliness and purity is, not one of us can prove that what was said is true or not. Not a single person on this Earth can honestly admit to being free from sin. And yet, some of us feel that it is within our rights to throw the Bible at those who sin, especially at those they can explicitly nab for a particular sin. Are they that arrogant that they think God won’t notice the malicious intent of their endeavors? Do they honestly think that by making an object out of someone else’s sin that God will somehow overlook theirs? Do they think that because they have been “forgiven” their sins that they won’t have to make atonenment?
If a book such as the Bible were written today, many of us, Christian’s included, would question the validty of the content. But it appears that some of us would not dare discount the content of the Bible. Why?
I’m gay, and by the Bible I am apparently the sinner of all sinners, and I should be stoned to death. I try to do what is right in all ways except one, and for that I will especially go to hell. But anyone who has ever met me knows that I really try to be the best person I can be, that I try very hard to love my enemies as I do my friends, that I try very hard to meet the standards as set forth by the Bible, except one. I would even try to reproduce if it wasn’t such a dangerous and potentially disastrous prospect.
I can go before God, and say “I did my very best, but I can’t lie to you anymore than I can lie to myself…” What say you, who lie to yourselves that you are some how holier than me to be able to pass judgement against me?
According to the Bible, boitoi, your job is to turn to God and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, entering into repentance – which is a technical term having only tangential reference to giving up sinful activity, but rather meaning something more like choosing to love and follow God as you might commit yourself for life to a single lover, forsaking all others etc. Since “sin” is defined as “those things that keep you away from God,” repenting involves giving up “sin.”
Are you sinning? Sure; we all do – because none of us is capable of loving God all the time with every fiber of our being and loving every one of our fellow men as we do ourselves. (Admit it; you don’t love Fred Phelps very well, do you? ;))
The Law was God’s attempt at codifying a system of human behavior that would lead to repentance (as defined above). With our human penchant for picking nits while ignoring the big picture, we took it legalistically and failed to realize what He really wanted. Even when He sent Jesus to spell it out in words of one syllable, we kept zeroing in on “sins” that people needed to quit doing – not us, mind you, but those sinners over there!! :rolleyes:
Your job W/R/T all this is to use the sexuality God gave you in a way that meets the two great commandments of love. And whatever Moses or Paul or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (or Mel White or Louis Crew for that matter) says about what specific “sins” you need to give up, it’s your job and not mine to figure out how to repent of your sin (no plural here!!) and turn to Him. Which may or may not involve changing how you express your sexuality – that’s not for anybody but you yourself to decide.