bitblt Says:

Lucky for us a describe is adequate to describe what the act is: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ” Lv 18:22

Lucky for you, Leviticus also spells out a lot of other evil things for you to avoid! Here’s a few:

“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
Wow, how many kids would we have to put to death every day, do you think, if we made this part of religion into law? Great for the pro-death penalty types.

“…do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Quick! Check your shirt tags! Those poly/cotton blends are going to get us stoned to death! Or at least condemn us to eternal damnation….

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
Be sure to buy your slaves from Canada or Mexico…

Here’s my personal favorite, and I’m sure one of yours, since you’re so fond of throwing out that “abomination” word:
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)
Why aren’t you demanding that Long John Silver and Red Lobster be put out of business? Fighting for laws banning the presence of shrimp and lobster from our restaurants? Protecting our children from the disgusting and amoral popcorn shrimp offered in cafeterias and fast food chains all over the country? Get it in gear, Christians! The eating of seafood is going to be the damnation of us all!

So, seriously. Keep your crazy rules out of our secular government and laws. I’m going to go make some crab salad and try to, once again, explain to my daughter why her parents can’t get married in this wonderfully free country of ours.

February 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Irreverent is not the same as irrelevant.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, an observant one who read, quoted, and apparently believed the Old Testament.

The New Testament makes a remark about Christ’s appearance that is something like, “…He was not comely.” Why you think bit believes Christ looks a certain way – perhaps Caucasian – may be one of the great mysteries of the universe.

You probably need to stuff your straw man a little tighter.

Go to sheol!!!
Believe the word you’re looking for is the NT word
“ghenna.” Bit doesn’t think the concept of “sheol” and “ghenna” are identical.

I’m quite content to identify myself as a Universalist!
Please correct bit if what he assumes from this remark is incorrect. bit assumes this means you identify yourself as UUC. Bit understands that UUCs don’t necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. bit further understands that there are people who identify themselves as Christian but don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. If this describes Pelotonpro 048 bit would appreciate knowing this.

bit says: Are you saying that “homosexuality” was discovered after the Bible was written?
This is humor – very dry and moderately lame, but humor nonetheless.

For someone who has studied three languages, bit certainly fails to understand the comments I made in English.

The bottom line is bit has his religious beliefs, which I will defend even though I disagree, but, more germaine is that he has made it crystal clear that he demands that his beliefs be the basis of American law. That, I will fight!

bit, you should also remember that Jesus was accused of being a blasphemer, not devout, a violator of the Law, and against the authority of Scripture.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

And had He not had the authority of the Son of God, Jesus would have been all those things.

Very true! Further, English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century, so any Bible translation which uses this term is adding to and potentially distorting the meaning of Scripture. It’s like the argument that “privacy” is not contained in the Constitution as a right. I just read something that I should have recognized – “privacy” was the act of using the “privvy”, the toilet, in the time of the Founding Fathers so of course there would have never been a mention of this word.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Pelotonpro 048 Says: Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation?

Well. bit’s only studied three languages so this is not really a surprising statements.

But what’s the point, and why would anyone say this? Is it because the only way to “explain away” the scriptures to which bit refers is to say that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says, or we can’t really understand what it says because the original text weren’t written in English?

And this remark: “English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century,” there was a point to it. The word dinosaurs is also a word from the latter part of the 19th century. There were dinosaurs before the word was invented.

Are you saying that “homosexuality” was discovered after the Bible was written?

Lucky for us a describe is adequate to describe what the act is: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ” Lv 18:22

Scripture is wrought through the hands of man and, therefore, is subject to man’s errors. Unless you believe that the sun moves in the sky, across the earth, creating a “day” then the above Scripture is not literally factual. Scripture must be understood contextually by referencing the language, understandings, and purposes for which it was given to the people at the time. It must be understood as well by the fact that it has been translated across various languages with different nuance in meaning across time.

But, again, bit, the issue here is that each of us is supposed to have a personal relationship with God, not a cookie cutter one dictated by anyone. God, but NOT you, can question the devotion and acceptance of Christ.

Bitblt has a profound lack of understanding of scripture! Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation? Could it be possible that these passages could have been translated by people with an agenda? For example,”Do this in Memory of me,” can just as well be translated into,”Remember me when you do this,” which can be interpreted in a wholly different manner. Are we supposed to break bread and drink wine or are we to remember Yeshewa when we celebrate the Sadr at passover? I am a devout Christian but I don’t identify myself that way for fear that I may be associated with your ilk! Who appointed you the seer of truth? God’s gonna be pissed!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Why do you call yourself a devout Christian when you straightaway undermine the authority of scripture? You undermined the authority of scripture with some very irrelevant examples I might add.

Please consider voicing both your acceptance of Christianity AND your opposition to the narrow interpretation of our religion. I am convinced that only by doing so, can we protect both our religion and our country. We must speak out for separation of church and state as a protective wall for each. We cannot let the Christian Pharisees own the issues.

Very true! Further, English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century, so any Bible translation which uses this term is adding to and potentially distorting the meaning of Scripture. It’s like the argument that “privacy” is not contained in the Constitution as a right. I just read something that I should have recognized – “privacy” was the act of using the “privvy”, the toilet, in the time of the Founding Fathers so of course there would have never been a mention of this word.

That’s really only ONE question with the “second” being merely an explanation. And my answer is an unequivocal “yes” because individual freedom of religion and other issues of personal conscience are the foundation of a truly free society. IF (that is, BTW, a huge strawman)gay marriage can destroy the US, then the US is not truly a free society and we have been living a lie since 1776. And, you, bit, are contributing to the US being a theocracy, not a representative democracy. Why stop with “gay marriage”? Why not outlaw work on the Sabbath (not the fake Sunday Sabbath, but the Friday sundown to Saturday sundown one)? Why not outlaw baptism of infants, which has no basis in Scripture? Why not outlaw use of grape juice rather than wine in the Eucharist? Why not fine or otherwise punish people for not “praying continuously”? Why not punish people for dishonoring their parents? Why not punish people for coveting? Why not punish people for not loving God with all their heart? Why not imprison people who do not tithe? Why not have the government demand that all the denominations of Christianity unite? Why not demand that a man marry the widow of his deceased brother? Why not pass laws to prohibit the consumption of shellfish, selling cloth of two materials, and not giving your first born to the church?

So, bit, let’s cut to the chase. TP is a political blog. The issue of whether or not to permit gay marriage is political. Do you, bit, believe that the government or the majority of Americans have a right to limit the free exercise of religion and personal choice by denying gays the right to marry (and you can’t use the language card by protesting the word “marriage” saying it is owned by your religion)?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

You’re making it tough, PLC.
You do understand that same-same gender marriage is not representative of those who practice homosexuality. Numbers from both MA and CA show that only about 3% of the homosexual population – much less that 1% of the general population, are interested in SSGM. bit believes he remembers seeing other statistics from around the world that are in-line with the percentages.

However, the answer to your question is yes.

Here’s two questions for you, and bit is sure that PLC will graciously answer them with little or no qualification.

Is the right of so-called same-same gender marriage worth the destruction of the U.S.? This means that if you knew that the Federal imposition of so-called same-same gender marriage on the states would indeed bring about the dissolution of the U.S., would you still call it a right?