"So, are you ant-Christian too?" ~ vox_freedom
So, you read what I wrote above and came to the inexplicable -(because it's a non-sequitur)- conclusion that I am 'anti-Christian'?
With those reading comprehension skills you could click my screen name, read my profile page and still be able to come to the same conclusion.
"BTW, both Jews and Christians hold similar social beliefs extending over several millenia, commonly referred to Judeo-Christian ethics and values. These values include opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, court ordered killing of helpless individuals, etc. So do you think it is wrong for our government to take positions on these Judeo-Christian issues?"~ vox_freedom
Here's your 'Constitutional' answer, combind with this accurate observation.
"..Jesus may not have condoned gay marriage, but he was against oppression. His harsh criticisms were against the OVERLY religious....NOT the sinners."
pretty much tells us all we need to know about your views of Christ and Christianity. Christ wasn't harsh with sinners? Oh, really?
Maybe you ought to read some quotes of His regarding sinners before agreeing with someone that was just banned here on FR. Or maybe you think Christ wasn't judgmental about those who would condone homosexual marriage and other perversions? Really?
Better still maybe you should read some of St. Paul's published letters and words and get back to us on what Christ "believed," OK?
Here are some words to ponder in an interview with a Robert Gagnon (Robert A.J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, a graduate institution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Gagnon is the author of "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" (Abingdon, 2001):
Gagnon: First, the prohibitions against same-sex intercourse occur in the context of other types of sexual activity that the church today still largely regards as illegitimate: incest, adultery and bestiality.
The strong prohibitions against these forms of sexual activity represent the closest analogues to the prohibition of same-sex intercourse. This is particularly the case with the prohibition of incest which, as with the prohibition of same-sex intercourse, rejects intercourse between two beings that are too much alike. Leviticus refers pejoratively to sex with a family member as sex with "one´s own flesh."
Second, the attachment of purity language in ancient Israelite culture to such acts as incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, idolatry, economic exploitation, and the like -- far from suggesting an amoral or non-moral basis for the rejection of such acts -- actually buttresses the moral focus on the inherently degrading character of the acts themselves. It underscores that any talk about the positive moral intent of the participants is irrelevant.
For the same reason, the Apostle Paul many centuries later connected the language of impurity with acts -- usually sexual acts -- that are rejected on moral grounds: not only same-sex intercourse but also adultery, incest, sex with prostitutes, and promiscuous sexual activity. [Gagnon later cites some texts: Romans 1:24 and 6:19; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; 1 Thessalonians 2:3 and 4:7; see Ephesians 4:19; 5:3,5; and Colossians 3:5.]
Third, unlike a number of the now-defunct elements of the Holiness Code to which reference is often made, the indictment of same-sex intercourse is particularly severe, as suggested by the specific attachment of the label "toevah" and by making it a capital offense.
Same-sex intercourse was regarded by ancient Israel as a particularly severe infraction of God´s will. Indeed, we know of no ancient Near Eastern culture that adopted a more rigorous opposition to all forms of same-sex intercourse. True, the New Testament and the contemporary church does not apply the penalty attached to this act in the Levitical code. But, then again, it does not retain the Old Testament valuation of adultery, incest and bestiality as capital offenses either, even as it still rejects such forms of intercourse as immoral.
Fourth, the prohibitions of same-sex intercourse are not limited to particularly exploitative forms but are rather unqualified and absolute.
I don't read ambiguity in these statements, do you? Or do you still agree with Sandy01?