Is this why there are so many different denominations of Christianity, not to mention all the denominations of judaism (I apologize if my spelling is off), or the different versions of Islam, etc.  If there is supposed to be only one correct interpretation then who has it right?  Obviously you will say that you do, but members of the other denominations would say that they do or possibly that there are many interpretations.  All of this is why religion should have no impact on government and why government should have no impact on religion.

Well said.

Precisely. Or, what people (even of good will) interpreted as that.

You misunderstand the "denominations" of Judaism. They do not actually believe different things. They vary in traditions, not belief. They are also not "different" Judaisms, there is only one Jewish people.

Religious Jews keep kosher and observe the Shabbas in the most strict way. Non-religious Jews do not. Traditional Jews are somewhere in the middle. But they believe the same things. They do not have different ideas of the nature of G-d (like the Christian denominations do).

I think there might be differences of opinion among people not affiliated with any formal religion too. I don't see why certain opinions should be barred for influencing the government just because they are organised in religions of which there are more than one. That's ridiculous.

If I and a Christian disagree on something because of our different religions we disagree just as much as two atheists might because of their non-organised personal opinions. What gives them the right to influence government but not us?

Yes I mean the elected government.  And our government has a freedom of religion as well as a freedom from religion so that anyones religious beliefs are not forced on others.  Hence civil unions should be definied simply as between consenting adults and nothing more.  If people want to get married they should have to do so through a religious institution which would then have to approve of their relationship, etc.  But as far as the law is concerned people in a civil union should be treated the same as those who are married.

My main point of contention with Lula's comment was that homosexuals are inherently promiscuous.

And my point was simply that there were lots of things listed as abominations that many christians choose to ignore, so why harp on the whole man who lays with man as he does a woman abomination.

But who gets to define which opinion constitutes a "religious belief"? What if a Unitarian Church member campaigns for homosexual marriage because his religion tells him that there should be such a thing? Would a law allowing homosexual marriage supported by him constitute religion forced on others?

I think they are just like heterosexuals are. Hence humanity invented the concept of marriage and often prohibited promiscuity, especially for girls who are usually more likely to take away a disease or pregnancy from that behaviour.

But are those abominations that Christians don't ignore specific Jewish law (which is not binding for non-Jews) or general abominations that apply to everyone? Some Christians make that distinction.

I personally do not believe that it is wrong for a non-Jew to eat pork. (In fact I don't care if a Jew other than myself does, but let's assume I was religious about this.)

My mistake then in regards to the members of the Jewish faith.

It's not that the people should be barred from government, they shouldn't, but religious beliefs should NOT become laws of the government (ie homosexuals cannot join in civil unions and enjoy the same benefits as marriage from a legal standpoint).  Especially in the case of gay marriage or civil unions (whichever you prefer to call it) many feel that when government says that unions can only be between a man and a woman that is forcing some religious doctrine down their throats which is supposedly not allowed in our country.

The difference is that gay marriage, or civil unions, isn't being forced on anyone.  No one is trying to state that the only allowed unions are between two members of the same sex.  Rather they are arguing that the definition be expanded so that in the eyes of the government it doesn't matter whether the union is between two members of the same or opposite sex.  By the government limiting the definition to between one man and one woman that is a religious definition of marriage being forced on everyone in that it limits it too much.

And that's my main question, why were some "abominations" picked over?  If god decreed things to be an abomination shouldn't that apply to all of "his" children?

Many laws are based on religious definitions. But if those laws have existed before the creation of the establishment clause (I believe that's what it's called), they might not fall under it.

The law that murder is wrong is based on a religious definition too. Does that mean that not legalising murder means forcing someone's religion on everyone?

No. Why would Eskimos have to follow the same law as a desert people?

Don't forget that the Bible means different things to Jews and Christians. For Jews it's a Jewish book of law. For Christians it's explanation of the world. I find nothing odd with the idea that G-d would tell a desert people not to eat, say, whale, while recommending the same thing for Eskimos.

Yes.

But the law regarding sexual immorality is one of the Noahide laws, not the "ten" commandments.

Noahide laws are meant to apply to everyone. But how to interpret them is another question still.

No it's not.  You don't need religion to know that killing people is wrong.    You need to outlaw murder to have order in society, you don't need to bar homosexuals from getting married to have order in society.

Than why decree something as an abomination if it's ok for some people but not all.  That just doesn't make sense.

But the word abomination is a very strong word and can't be implied as a recomendation.  If it was then why didn't god specify that eating shellfish was an abomination for people living in the desert but it was ok for people who lived in colder climates or lived on the sea?  If that's what god intended then why didn't "he" say it?

It is when it is a rule invented by the elders of desert tribes who are basing it on observations of health on their people. And have no clue about the health needs of eskimoes.

Yes, it is. That's what religion is: law. (In Hebrew there is only one word for "law" and "religion": "dath"). That's what the Bible was, originally, a law book. And it just happened to outlaw murder.

But societies have existed, very stable societies, for thousands of years that allowed murder. In fact even European countries in the middle ages had legalised murder and those societies were still stable and orderly. Heck, the most orderly societies I know were Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union and murder was one of the fundamentals of their cuultures.

It's the English translation (and the Latin translation) that use the word "abomination" and it is only because that word is used in the Bible that it is considered so very grave. Just substitute "forbidden" if you find the usual translation too grave. But remember if everybody remembers the word "forbidden" as a Biblical term it will become very grave and big in a few generations too.

The word abomination is only strong because it's in the Bible. The Latin word it derives from is a normal word, same for the Hebrew word (actually several words) it translates.

G-d did specificy that eating shellfish was an abomination for people living in the desert. According to the Bible G-d called a desert people to wait next to a mountain while He told their leader about the shellfish thing. Why on earth should He have mentioned specifically that this law (and the laws regarding pigs and camels) is not for Eskimos (who knew neither camel nor pig at the time)?

"Dudes, here's the law for you. It's the law for you. It's for you, not for Eskimos, get it? Not a law for Eskimos."

Is that what you expected? Do you likewise assume that Eskimo legends (I believe they originally had some sort of Shamanist system) would specifically mention that hunting whales is the thing to do to survive, unless you are a tribe of shepherds living in the middle east?

What more can G-d do than appear in person before a people's leader and tell him that this (hands him a bunch of tablets) is the law for his people?

Exactly.

In fact they might have had a clue about the health needs of Eskimoes. But it certainly wouldn't have affected their decision regarding desert tribes needs.

But just because it was in the bible and it happens to be outlawed in the United States (and other countries) doesn't mean that the law was based on religion.

Forbidden is a strong word too.  If it's a recommendation for a desert people then use a word like recommendation or qualify the word abomination (or forebidden) so that it only applies to certain people.  Such language isn't there in the bibles that I've seen.

Then how is one supposed to be able to determine what laws apply to what people?  And that's my major hold up, it appears that Christians have chosen to ignore lots of the "abominations" but they choose to keep the one related to homosexuality.  I just want to know why some were thrown out and others were kept.  And then why people who aren't Christian should be held to the same rules as Christians.

That's not what I said. I said that a prohibition of murder is a religious issue. Some religions (including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, most pre-Christian European religions) prohibited it. Hence the western custom of prohibiting murder.

Either way, whether one supports laws that prohibit murder or not is a question of one's religion.

It's not a recommendation. It's a law. It is indeed FORBIDDEN for Jews to eat certain animals by Jewish law. If you read your Bible you will see that the "abominations" in question are listed on stone tablets given to the Israelites as their law. It has nothing to do with other peoples and I don't see why a Jewish book of law should mention specifically that Jewish law does not apply to non-Jews.

In general peoples in history didn't have a major problem with it. Romans followed Roman law, Carthaginians followed Carthaginian law, and Jews followed Jewish law.

If you want to determine who is to follow which law you can start by not reading another people's law to find out what you are supposed to do. That would help.

As I said, the Bible specifically says that the law about sexual immorality (which I take is where the Christians take their stand against homosexuality from) is one that is binding for all people.

You ask that G-d please make it clear which law is for whom. Well, according to the Bible He did. There is Jewish law and Noahide law. The second is supposed to be binding for all, whether for all descendants of Noah or for everybody else or whether the two are the same group I cannot tell you as the Bible does not tell us that either.

How often do you want me to give you the answer?

Some things in the Bible are binding for Jews, others are binding for all.

Again, the belief that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage is a religious belief just like the belief that they are different. Which one of the two do you want to be law?

The law about marriage (in Common Law) is older than the law (in the American Constitution) that says that religious beliefs must not be forced on people. The constitution speaks about laws made, not about laws existing.

While you cannot (legally) create a law that established a religion in the US now, this article of the constitution simply doesn't apply to English Common Law which was and remains valid in the US (except in Louisiana) unless changed by US law.

which is not what our founders wanted at all and I've got lots and lots of their writings to show for it.  That's what we're being told today so we can push these types of agendas ahead. Why now?  Why are we having these discussions now if the founding fathers were all cozy about this?   Allowing homosexuality as an ethical and alternative lifestyle will be the downfall of our culture.  It's always the last step before a culture goes down. 

Yes.  Our faith is based on facts and logic.  God never said we were just to have faith without revelation.  He gives us what we need.  Peter many remember walked on water because of his faith.  He didn't do that by himself.  Jesus showed him how by walking before him and showing him.  Abraham wasn't asked to sacrifice his son until he was quite old and had seen the hand of God in his life all up until that point.  In the beginning he wasn't so sure about trusting God.  So much so that we see that Abraham lied twice to protect his and his wife's life earlier in their lives.  Gideon tested God because he was so unsure he asked for proof and God supplied it. 

yes and like he did in the NT and still does today. 

I actually brought that up as well (in Chap 18) when God said there wickedness was crying out to him.  There was more going on there than just gross inhospitality. 

The angels in scripture have all come across as male.  Kind of funny considering we depict them in a femine way isn't it?  It's clear they are male angels and the "men" of the town wanted them outside so they could have at em....so it's some sort of homosexual tendency going on here.  Usually men rape women not other men unless you're talking prison. 

 Now you're saying Josephus had a dirty mind?  Why?  Because I gave him as proof?  You didn't say that before when you quoted him first.  Remember you brought up Josephus before I did. 

I don't compromise scripture Leauki and that's not really a compromise anyhow.  That's a given.  I'm just reading it plainly and with scripture interpreting scripture like you pointed out in Ezek and my pointing out Jude we can see it is a compound of sins with the last straw being sexual devient behavior. 

exactly Leauki.  We're in agreement totally. 

good job El-D.  I knew you could find them and it's nice to see you interested in scripture ....but did you know that God also released them from being an abomination later?  So it's ok to eat these things now?  Do you know there's a reason behind all of this concerning the Jews and the Gentiles?  I won't get into all that here but  Leauki actually backs me up here with his comment.....

Now those Jews who acknowledge the NT they do not have such a prohibition put on them. 

Sexual Perversion, Lack of hospitality... those are both just details.  Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed for 1 reason and 1 reason alone...

It wasn't any specific sin, it was the fact that there were no righteous to be found in those cesspools.

Christians HAVE NOT ignored anything.  The dietary laws that were given to the Jews in the OT were NOT given to the Gentiles.  Never were given to the Gentiles in fact.

In fact if you read the book of Acts you would find that Peter (a Jew) was given a vision from God saying that all things were now safe to eat and that the wall that separated Jew and Gentile was now torn down.  Peter had a hard time with this at first especially.  Paul talks a good deal about this as well calling it a mystery know revealed.  The dietary law was for sanitary reasons and also separated the two groups.  Now Jew and Gentile were to dwell together, as well as eat together as prophesied way back after the flood that Shem (Jews) and Japeth (Gentiles) would dwell together under one tent. 

yes as you know Leauki it was very clear in the OT and also repeated more than once for good measure in the NT.  That never changed.  Any type of sexual sin, be it adultery, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, beastility etc...is a direct sin against God.  David recognized this and fell on his knees in repentance after his sin with Bathsheba and that's the reason he was called a man after God's own heart.  He recognized his grievious sin that was against God and repented.  You can read about this in Psalm 51.  The homosexuals are blatant about their sin even trying to have it legalized and for that we are going down.  It's like a fist in God's face.    You wait and see.  It won't take long. 

my husband explained to me the other day the difference between having morality and being ethical.  Morality is based on a standard of right and wrong that is outside of ourselves.  God would be that standard.  It's like that's the never changing plumbline.  How we choose to act according to his standard is evidence of where our morality lies.  Being ethical is dependant on the changing culture.  What is ethical today might not have been 20 years ago.  Morality never changes.  Ethics do.  Our culture, for instance, is continuing to move away from morality so for Christians we are to stand out more and more as the gap widens between morality and ethics.  Sorry to say, many Christians are falling into the gap; some trying to jump on the ever widening hole that separates the world from those who don't claim the world as their home. 

no we don't.  You're going in a direction you know nothing about.  You're not putting down that the abominations were done away with....hint........ check the book of Acts while you're reading scripture.  If you're going to tell a story at least tell the end of the story.  You may also want to check out a few NT books that repeats that men with men and women with women is still an abomination....start with Romans 1.  That never changed. 

It's the same with many Christian groups.  There are reasons that have to do with traditions and manner of doing services.  Some like modern, some like traditional.  Some like plain and simple and some like an organized liturgy.  It's like different flavors of ice cream.  Some like plain vanilla and some like nuts and goo in theirs.  The only thing to watch out for is that it's really ice cream.  Some are artificial only resembling the real thing and you'll only understand and recognize it if you're familiar with what real ice cream tastes like. 

Just because a group calls themselves Christian they are not.  The Christians are all united by the essentials.  They may be divided by traditions and what we call non-essentials but the essentials is what ties us all together into one family regardless of denomination. 

and that's exactly true Ted.  It was more like a progression of sin the last straw being the sin of homosexuality.  There is a downslide or progression and from what we read here and in Ezek, there was no hope or turning back since they were so dirty and steeped in their sin. 

I brought him up as proof for my assertion that Sodom was destroyed for inhospitality, not homosexuality.

And yes, he had a dirty mind.