Bible interpretations hypocritical? (Semi Gay marriage related)

You asked for someone to clarify. You seemed to have a problem with the Old Testament Law and its role today.

Someone tried to clarify it for you in an inoffensive manner, gave a simple explanation, and supplied a link to an article by a respected systematic theologian, an article that will directly help in this discussion.

And you reply by giving an obnoxious and crude one liner.

At least clarify in your original post that you aren't really interested in the opinions and help from people who make an effort to understand the doctrines of the bible.

You asked for some clarification, you don't just try and shoot them down by using a whole lot of big words. Don't need to agree, but show some respect for the people who input a legitimate view.

I'm confused. Was this directed at me? I've been nothing but civil in this post and none of my replies were one liners.

Im running to class now, Ill be back later to continue debating this topic.

Gay or not, just look at how many arranged marriages are in the Bible.
For a book of love, the Bible sure does seem to condone forcing people together whether they love each other or not.

When you look at the old Christian religion where every marriage among the ruling elite was arranged, it's obvious that where the Bible is concerned, marriage has been twisted around by it's authors to become a very ambiguous union.
In the 10 Commandments we have "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery", yet arranged marriages were mostly loveless as they were carried out for political purposes and adultery was often the only way that a man or woman could find love!!!!

And the practice has never entirely died out. Some Christian sects, Islam and Judaism, still practice arranged marriages.

To condemn any marriage because of words in the Bible is open to question. The fact is that marriage in the Bible bears no resemblance to the union that we make today in the Western world where now we mostly marry through love. This was probably the way it was meant to have been done in the first place and it is actually the Bible that got it wrong by having a political agenda.

One point of interest though. Wouldn't Adam and Eve have been an arranged marriage and not one made in love? God created Eve for Adam and she was the only chick in town.....

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I'm confused. Was this directed at me? I've been nothing but civil in this post and none of my replies were one liners.

Im running to class now, Ill be back later to continue debating this topic.

Sorry dude, I made a mistake. It was in response to member Aeon10101110 post. His Avatar is similiar to yours, in that it has the all seeing eye. I mistook you two as the same for a second, I was so very tired when I made that post.

I apologise to both Aeon10101110 and cutwolf.

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by StationsCreation]

I just realized something. Not only are religious zealots hypocritical in their interpreations of the Bible, but they quote both the Old and New testaments...

Which is it guys?

If we refer to Leviticus 18:22 where it states

"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

Than we must also allow the passages in the same Jewish Holiness Code that

permits polygamy
prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
bans tattoos
prohibits eating rare meat
bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
prohibits cross-breeding livestock
bans sowing a field with mixed seed
prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath


If we go to the New Testament...well, there are really no mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament. The commonly referred to passage is a mistranslation of a word that more than likely meant "male prostitute." It is now believed these male prostitutes serviced women, not men.

So, which shall it be?

Anyone care to respond to my previous post? I'm really curious on how this works.