OMGlobalWarmingTFHAX

[PaperLuigi]

And it's funny that you quote a passage mentioning the sins and faults of Sodom, and then make a statement supporting homosexuality a few sentences later.  (And I do support gay rights, in that their preferences should not affect their being employed or their joining the military.)

http://www.gaychurch.org/gay_and_christian_yes/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7_gac_the_clobber_passages.htm

So many ways of interpreting clobber passages like Leviticus 18:22. 

EDIT: Yeah, this topic has been derailed. I don't really care.

[Weegee]

The ice caps are melting

Tiny Tim shares some insight on this matter. Skip to 1:00.

[Turtlekid1]

So many ways of interpreting clobber passages like Leviticus 18:22. This website saved my faith.

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10

A condemnation of homosexuality isn't exclusive to Leviticus.  And as the word "Arsenokoitais" has been translated to mean "homosexual" from the very beginning, and since the learned men who translated it in the first place were not idiots, I'm going to have to disagree with that slap in the face to William Tyndale.

By the way, since murder and thievery are also condemned in Leviticus, are they now acceptable?

Just because something isn't a crime doesn't mean it's not a sin; just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not immoral.

Moreover, anything that Jesus didn't abrogate in the New Testament should still be considered valid.  He abrogated ceremonial/dietary law, not moral law.  There's a difference between the two.

EDIT: Just so the topic is not completely derailed...

[ShadowBrain]

Multiple derailments (well, maybe just mutations of the current topic) notwithstanding, I'd just like to say that I feel a whole lot better about a point someone's trying to make when... well, when I know what it is. So, to clarify: The thing I am supposed to think when I read this article is that... (man-made) global warming is a hoax? That the people in charge of distributing information concerning it want to look good?

[PaperLuigi]

By the way, since murder and thievery are also condemned in Leviticus, are they now acceptable?

Not at all. Passages condemning murder and thievery have always been interpreted that way by liberal and conservative theologians alike.

However, a conservative interpretation of Deuteronomy says we should stone our children to death if they're unruly. Way to pick and choose your passages.

[Turtlekid1]

Like I said, crime and sin are not always the same thing.  What was considered a crime punishable by death in a theocracy like the one in Moses' time shouldn't necessarily in a Democratic Republic.  That doesn't make it less immoral, it just means it doesn't need to be considered a crime.

[PaperLuigi]

So then gays should be allowed to marry, right?

[Turtlekid1]

No, because Marriage is an inherently Biblical ceremony that human law should have no part of.

A better question would be why homosexuals would want to participate in such an obviously Christian institution.

[PaperLuigi]

No, because Marriage is an inherently Biblical ceremony that human law should have no part of.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no it's not. No it's freaking not. A couple does not need to comply with any religious requirement to obtain a marriage license, nor does the license confer any religious approval.

People married long before the Bible was written (see ancient Chinese society).

EDIT: Also, homosexuals want to participate because a lot of them are Christian.

[Turtlekid1]

A government-issued marriage license doth not a marriage make.  I'm talking about an actual marriage, sanctioned by God, not government (who have no authority to do that). 

In a perfect world, government wouldn't make any laws restricting gay marriage because marriage would have stayed within the church, and the church would interpret scripture correctly and not allow homosexuality.

As I've said before, if they want the tax and financial benefits of marriage, then they should just get a civil union.

[PaperLuigi]

A government-issued marriage license doth not a marriage make.  I'm talking about an actual marriage, sanctioned by God, not government (who have no authority to do that). 
 

Can you not read? People were getting married long before any concept of God was brought into existence!

In a perfect world, government wouldn't make any laws restricting gay marriage because marriage would have stayed within the church, and the church would interpret scripture correctly and not allow homosexuality.

Again, I just said that marriage is not a religious institution.

As I've said before, if they want the tax and financial benefits of marriage, then they should just get a civil union.

Screw that. That's like that whole "separate but equal" bull[dukar] they were toting around in 1896.

[Turtlekid1]

Adam was created before Eve and had knowledge of God before she was created, did he not?  God's creation of Eve was the first marriage, was it not?  I don't remember saying anything about it being instituted by religion (man); it was instituted by God.  Even if we hadn't known God in the beginning, that would still be irrelevant.

And how does the church's not allowing gay marriage make gays any less equal as people?  They still have the same constitutional rights as anyone else, of which marriage is not one.

[PaperLuigi]

I cannot debate with you further. If you honestly believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then no amount of scientific evidence will change your mind. Sorry.

[Turtlekid1]

I also don't remember saying the earth was 6000 years old.  However, no scientific evidence can prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans.

[PaperLuigi]

Which is exactly why our debate is done.