Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

[alzan]

That's because they equate rejecting the "act" part of homosexuality with rejecting the "person" part of it. That is simply not true. You reject the lifestyle, you reject the person. That's really over-the-top and causes some people to say "so be it".

It's almost like people are being forced, in a sense, to an "all or nothing" stance on homosexuals and what they do sexually.

It does seem like that and it's not just the issue of homosexuality, SSM, etc. I have a really good friend with whom I disagree with on a lot of subjects. He loves "stirring the pot" with bumper sticker political philosophy which he knows gets under my skin. I as well have pushed the envelope of polite and reasoned discussion with him as a retaliatory tactic. We've gotten into some glorious shouting matches. But I wouldn't trade him as a friend for the world. I can't stand some his views but the friendship is worth the fighting.

He's fairly non-religious these days but was raised Catholic. When we discussed SSM initially, he reverted to his Catholic roots, "It's not the same as traditional marriage", etc. Through further discussion he's come around to seeing it as less about tradition vs non-tradition and more about allowing everyone the same constitutional rights and protections. He still thinks homosexual sex is "icky" but wouldn't vote in favor of an anti-SSM law in our state or vote for a politician who was staunchly anti-gay or anti-SSM.

All of which is just a long-winded way of saying that whether it's discussions with friends face to face or discussions in online forums; keeping one's cool (yes, I'm dating myself) is tantamount to productive discourse. The more reasonable we can remain and the more information we exchange will lead to greater understanding of any topic. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. There's lots of commonality to be found in the de-militarized zone of the the war of words.

 

[Abraxas]

Quoting you:



More:

[/B]

End of discussion. You've held this belief probably most, if not all of your adult live... even if you're around 50 years old.

Why engage in a debate about something you have your mind clearly made up on?

The same reason you are debating everyone else in this thread. Do you honestly think anyone else here doesn't have their mind already made up? Do you think you are going to convince Alzan or zsdersw that being gay is morally wrong? What would the point be? Well, to convince the audience, for the entertainment value of debating, to find out what other people believe, why, and how they got there, or any combination of the above.

We would just have a way off-topic, circle-jerk debate culminating in childish name-calling.

It wouldn't have to.

I don't recall you once in this thread engaging me on the topic... particularly some of the stats I posted on the last page or two concerning HIV/AIDS. Alzan and zsdersw have done that, even if we aren't agreeing on everything, I respect them for that.

The topic is a father disowning his son based on his believing the Bible is inerrant. As for the disease portion, I have nothing more to add that Alzan and zsdersw haven't already said. At this point engaging on the disease stats would be redundant, merely piling on. More than that, they are completely irrelevant to the underlying point.

Tell me, suppose tomorrow you woke up and found that a new study had been conducted that proved beyond any and all doubt that AIDS and every other disease associated with homosexuality had in fact never been transmitted by homosexual contact. Suppose they were able to prove this to absolute certainty that homosexuality not only could not spread disease but actually provided some resistance against them. Would you decide then that homosexuality was moral and acceptable? Somehow, I doubt it, because your condemnation of homosexuality isn't about disease and it has never been about disease, it is about the Bible.

Further, I did challenge you on a number of specific points, namely your claim that blood should be avoided even though transfusions save way more lives than they cost, or that sixty years ago the US was more moral in the heart of segregation and misogyny, and that germs are spread through lots of natural and necessary functions and so singling out one specific function that spreads it as proof of immorality seems dubious. You, of course, have avoided responding to any of this.

If you focused a little more on the topic (which is on-topic) instead of attempting to focus exclusively on criticizing my belief system, we could have a discussion with no problem.

To what end? If at the heart of your problem with homosexuality is that it is condemned by the Bible, how can you possibly have a productive discussion that gets to the core of things without addressing the Bible?

 

[werepossum]

Not nearly as bad as the trap where he lures you into a bar making you believe you will see hot women stripping only to find it is a gay bar. You end up catching gay and before you know it you are french kissing the guy bringing you your drinks...

Ooh, I HATE it when that happens! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me sixteen times . . .

Abraxas spurred some semi-random thoughts, namely:

HIV is not necessarily a homosexual disease. Some African countries, where it is primarily spread through heterosexual contact, have the highest infection rates in the world. Speaking of which, HIV infection is rapidly growing amongst blacks. Is the next step discrimination against blacks? 'Cause we've been down that road before and I do not believe that dog will hunt a second time.

I really don't see why people consider homosexuality differently from a Biblical standpoint than eating shellfish or catfish or pork, or mixing wool and linen. If one is to be an absolutist on the Bible, is there not a moral imperative to be absolutist on every part of the Bible? And at least as far as the New Testament and especially the Gospels of the Christ go, seems to me they are geared exclusively toward inner reflection rather than the Old Testament fire and brimstone, keep your neighbor in line approach. If it offends G-d - and I personally am not convinced it does - rest assured that G-d still loves the homosexual and that he (and every one of the rest of us) have no doubt offended G-d worse in other ways. G-d is by definition a big boy; I think He can handle the gays being gay without the rest of us making sure they are hammered into our understanding of G-d's will. (And if He can't handle gays being gay, wasn't it a real dick move to allow them to be born gay? It's like running a marathon for salvation and then randomly stapling anvils to the balls of every tenth man.) And considering that Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven, and considering that by the standards of Jesus' time we are all filthy rich, do any of us really have the time to concentrate on fixing other people without risking our own souls? If I see a man stuffing his face with catfish and then refusing to give a bum even a buck, can he really find salvation through denying others the same rights he enjoys, at no cost to himself? Speaking of dick moves.

Opposing gay marriage seems to me to be no better than supporting higher taxes (or fewer services) for people who aren't you. In fact, it's worse, for whom I am free to marry is much, more central to my happiness than whether after taxes I have $50 discretionary income or $500 discretionary income.

I'm also really uncomfortable with people describing gays as bad because they have such high rates of disease. A disease is bad, certainly. Behavior can certainly be irresponsible, and it can be bad if it hurts someone else, but surely a person isn't bad for having a disease - any disease, even if his own behavior contributed. First, that applies only to gay men who are promiscuous, not gay women, and some non-gay groups such as hemophiliacs actually have historically suffered under greater rates of infection. Second, if there were less societal pressure against gays there might be less promiscuity; certainly there would be fewer men in the closet grabbing anonymous sex and bringing it home to Mama. And third, shouldn't that apply to other diseases as well? Are we to disparage black folks for their high rates of sickle cell anemia? White folks evil for the skin cancer? Damn Asians and their bird flue? A big middle finger to white collar workers and their damned heart attacks? I generally dislike the slippery slope arguments, but it seems to me that this is, um, shall we say a trail with an insufficiently high coefficient of friction for safety and stability.

I had this argument with a friend in real life as we were driving to a job. He's a super nice guy, but dead set against gay marriage. His main argument is it's unnatural. Dude, seriously? We're hurtling down the road in a metal box at speeds not even cheetahs can reach. When we get to our destination, you're going to design a very large cave that will be built on top of the ground. I'm going to harness lightning and bring the sun indoors. When we're done, two thousand people will sit in air-conditioned comfort and watch as the fantasy of someone they will never even meet is enacted in photo-realistic glory - much of it created by computers. Unnatural? That ship sailed a few thousand years ago.

 

[OCGuy]

Sincerely,

Rev. Wright

 

[Retro Rob]

The same reason you are debating everyone else in this thread. Do you honestly think anyone else here doesn't have their mind already made up? Do you think you are going to convince Alzan or zsdersw that being gay is morally wrong?

No, I won't change their minds.

Tell me, suppose tomorrow you woke up and found that a new study had been conducted that proved beyond any and all doubt that AIDS and every other disease associated with homosexuality had in fact never been transmitted by homosexual contact. Suppose they were able to prove this to absolute certainty that homosexuality not only could not spread disease but actually provided some resistance against them. Would you decide then that homosexuality was moral and acceptable? Somehow, I doubt it, because your condemnation of homosexuality isn't about disease and it has never been about disease, it is about the Bible.

My morality as regards homosexuality has nothing to do with disease, firstly. The AIDS/HIV angle was just to add credibility to my argument.

Secondly, if they were able to prove that, then still, my morals would not change. Of course, it has always been about the Bible when it comes to my morals.

Further, I did challenge you on a number of specific points, namely your claim that blood should be avoided even though transfusions save way more lives than they cost, or that sixty years ago the US was more moral in the heart of segregation and misogyny, and that germs are spread through lots of natural and necessary functions and so singling out one specific function that spreads it as proof of immorality seems dubious. You, of course, have avoided responding to any of this.

Ok. fine. I just didn't feel like arguing back and forth with you. Alzan, and zsdersw have strong views, but they have cooled down with all the personal attacking (when I debate with them, anyway) and can have a sensible debate at times. This was the first time we've exchanged here, and I just didn't want to get into all the nonsense seeing how you came "out of the gate" in response to me.

To what end? If at the heart of your problem with homosexuality is that it is condemned by the Bible, how can you possibly have a productive discussion that gets to the core of things without addressing the Bible?

You address folks using whatever tools you rely on.. whether it's a science text, your own opinion, Wikipedia.. whatever. I rely on the Bible in conjunction with many other things. That's just my first go to source.

To ask you, I know that you know that men are fallible too, right? In fact, I know you've said it. And so are their theories, their research, the books they write. However, you (and many others) run to that as fact.. though you admit the many mistakes.

You call the flood, fictional. How would you know that? Were you there? Were the so-called "researches" there... the ones that called it "impossible", illogical.. or whatever? I learned that some things in the Bible that science can't replicate has to be false. How do they know the Earth could not have stood still without consequence? Oh, they can't do it.. so it has be fictional. Or if it happened now, we would see serious consequences. I understand that part, though. If they believe in God and that he much more powerful than they think, then its not hard to believe.

Remember, humans are flawed big time and we can't see pass our own abilities at times.

If you think the Bible isn't worth your time, hey, more power to you. But it requires a high amount of faith (some say foolishness) to believe in and to take seriously. Mostly because we weren't there to personally see any of the things written in it, and according to some of the people I've talked to, a lot of what's in it seems far-fetched because of what we know NOW as a human race... or what we can DO now as a human race.

 

[Retro Rob]

I really don't see why people consider homosexuality differently from a Biblical standpoint than eating shellfish or catfish or pork, or mixing wool and linen. If one is to be an absolutist on the Bible, is there not a moral imperative to be absolutist on every part of the Bible?

Well, the OT isn't in effect anymore -- it is more of a history lesson for the Jews and how God dealt with them. The NT is for the modern-day Christian Congregation. It also mentions things about homosexuality in the NT too. But not in the condemning of it by us, but honestly, by God.

That's what throws the bold part out, to be honest.

 

[K1052]

Well, the OT isn't in effect anymore -- it is more of a history lesson for the Jews and how God dealt with them. The NT is for the modern-day Christian Congregation. It also mentions things about homosexuality in the NT too. But not in the condemning of it by us, but honestly, by God.

That's what throws the bold part out, to be honest.

Given the frequency that Leviticus shows up cited for this reason I don't think everyone got the memo. The NT is pretty light on the issue of homosexuality which only might be referenced in the Pauline epistles but nobody can entirely agree on the translation.

Kinda thin grounds to be amending the US constitution on eh?

 

[Retro Rob]

Given the frequency that Leviticus shows up cited for this reason I don't think everyone got the memo. The NT is pretty light on the issue of homosexuality which only might be referenced in the Pauline epistles but nobody can entirely agree on the translation.

Kinda thin grounds to be amending the US constitution on eh?

I see what you mean.

Leviticus is thrown out there for those who try to justify hate. Shame.

 

[werepossum]

Well, the OT isn't in effect anymore -- it is more of a history lesson for the Jews and how God dealt with them. The NT is for the modern-day Christian Congregation. It also mentions things about homosexuality in the NT too. But not in the condemning of it by us, but honestly, by God.

That's what throws the bold part out, to be honest.

But did not Jesus say "I come not to destroy the law, but to complete it?"

By the way it always amazes me that people assert the Biblical flood never happened in spite of so much evidence around the world. We watched one program where an "expert" pointed out that you can't take the Bible literally because every ancient civilization has a flood myth. Wait - every ancient civilization having a flood myth is evidence there was no flood? Come again?

 

[Retro Rob]

But did not Jesus say "I come not to destroy the law, but to complete it?"

I am glad you said this.

Actually, he did by keeping it perfectly.

To illustrate: A builder fulfills a contract to complete a building, not by ripping up the contract, but by finishing the structure. However, once the work has been completed to the client’s satisfaction, the contract is fulfilled and the builder is no longer under obligation to it. Likewise, Jesus did not break, or rip up, the Law; rather, he fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly. Once fulfilled, that Law “contract” was no longer binding on God’s people

Jesus was born an Israelite and as such was under Law, and that included the Sabbath law. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away. (Colossians 2:13, 14)

 

[NikolaeVarius]

But did not Jesus say "I come not to destroy the law, but to complete it?"

By the way it always amazes me that people assert the Biblical flood never happened in spite of so much evidence around the world. We watched one program where an "expert" pointed out that you can't take the Bible literally because every ancient civilization has a flood myth. Wait - every ancient civilization having a flood myth is evidence there was no flood? Come again?

You're joking right.

Every ancient civilization has a flood myth/story because, wait for it, most ancient civilizations developed next to rivers. And what do rivers do every once in a while?

It's not somehow an argument for some worldwide flood, which is physically impossible.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're joking right.

Every ancient civilization has a flood myth/story because, wait for it, most ancient civilizations developed next to rivers. And what do rivers do every once in a while?

It's not somehow an argument for some worldwide flood, which is physically impossible.

But... wait for it... the Biblical Flood had nothing to do with Rivers or bodies of water or people being anywhere near water.

 

[Abraxas]

The reasons the flood could not possibly have happened, at least not as described, are numerous.

Going just with geological evidence, let alone the biological, mathematically speaking there simply isn't enough water on the planet to cover every mountain to the highest peak. Using the most advanced estimates we have for the volume of water contained in every ocean, river, lake, glacier, borehole, mud puddle, and ice cube, you would still need more than 3 times the amount of water on the planet to cover it. I can demonstrate this mathematically if necessary.

Second, we have icecaps. Had the flood occurred, the icecaps would have been destroyed by the strain of the flood, Antarctica in particular.

Third, the world does not display a pattern of uniform erosion consistent with the entire planet being submerged, nor a fossil record that shows a mass extinction event that recently in our history.

Fourth, we have continuous ice cores back over 100,000 years that show no evidence of a global flood during that period.

That's not even getting into archeological evidence that shows certain civilizations like the Egyptians and Sumerians existed before, during, and after the flood period, and that certain cities like Jericho and Damascus have been continuously inhabited for more than ten thousand years, or that we still have things like plants which would have been wiped out during a flood. The amount of evidence against the flood is simply overwhelming, every relevant field of science saying it is impossible based on the state of the Earth today.

 

[cybrsage]

I really don't see why people consider homosexuality differently from a Biblical standpoint than eating shellfish or catfish or pork, or mixing wool and linen. If one is to be an absolutist on the Bible, is there not a moral imperative to be absolutist on every part of the Bible? And at least as far as the New Testament and especially the Gospels of the Christ go, seems to me they are geared exclusively toward inner reflection rather than the Old Testament fire and brimstone, keep your neighbor in line approach.

Interesting discussion, and quite relevant.

The Law of Moses was not removed by Jesus. He very specifically said He did not come to destroy the law*, but to complete it. Now, The Law has only ever applied to the Jews (Israelites, who we now call Jews), those who decided to bind themselves to Israel when The Law was given, and the decendants of both. Over time, those who bound themselves to The Law were simply considered Jews.

The Law does not apply to the Goyim - the non-Jews. Never has. The place in the New Testament where people should look for the rules on sexual conduct is in Acts 15 (bolding mine):

19 “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. 21 For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 15&version=NLT

What constitutes sexual immorality? That would be based on the view of those who said it. Those who said it were devout Jews, so their view is that of a devout Jew, which would be based entirely on The Law.

It is like US laws being based on English Common Law. The US does not follow English laws, we have our own system. Our system is based on theirs, though, and some of our laws are understood better by looking at the system on which they are based. Courts still use English Common Law when reviewing some cases where it is relevant.

This means many sexual things are forbidden. Mon and son, dad and daughter, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, beastiality, necrophilia, and more.




*Interesting aside. When a Jew is teaching about The Law, and he teaches correctly, it is said that he has completed The Law in that he has upheld the requirements to correctly teach it to others so they can follow it. When a Jew teaches incorrectly, he is said to be destroying The Law, in that he is poisoning the minds of others and destroying what these people are to learn. Jesus was using a dual meaning when he said that phrase...he meant it in both that he was teaching The Law properly AND that The Law was still going to be in effect after He died.

 

[cybrsage]

Jesus was born an Israelite and as such was under Law, and that included the Sabbath law. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away. (Colossians 2:13, 14)

Collosians was written to the people of Colosse, who were Goyim. Paul was telling them to ignore the circumcision sect (those who said non-Jews had to convert to Judaism to become saved). The Law never applied to them, and Paul was saying it still does not.

The books written by Paul have to be read while keeping in mind who Paul is talking to.

 

[cybrsage]

The reasons the flood could not possibly have happened, at least not as described, are numerous.

There are many discussions about the flood. The one I prefer is that God was speaking about "the world of man" when He said "the world". The purpose was to wipe out mankind, specifically the portion which had become horrifically evil in His eyes.

To do this, a very large flood is still needed, but it would not need to cover the entire globe. To support this, we just have to look at what a Roman citizen considered the world - it was the boundaries of the Roman empire. Everything else was simply lands waiting to be added to the world. But this is all theory, the story is too generic to be able to say for sure. It is just a view of it, nothing more, nothing less.

As an aside, the ancient Israelites used the number 40 like we use the number "a million" today. It simply meant "a lot" (like saying there is a million stars in the sky)...so the rain was not for 40 literal days and nights, but a lot of days and nights.

 

[Retro Rob]

Collosians was written to the people of Colosse, who were Goyim. Paul was telling them to ignore the circumcision sect (those who said non-Jews had to convert to Judaism to become saved). The Law never applied to them, and Paul was saying it still does not.

The books written by Paul have to be read while keeping in mind who Paul is talking to.

.he meant it in both that he was teaching The Law properly AND that The Law was still going to be in effect after He died.

Well, do you fast, observe the Sabbath, not wear certain fabrics, not eat certain foods condemned under the "Law"?

Because if you believe that and follow it, (as you should since you say it's true), we can end the discussion and I will concede.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, do you fast, observe the Sabbath, not wear certain fabrics, not eat certain foods condemned under the "Law"?

Because if you believe that and follow it, (as you should since you say it's true), we can end the discussion and I will concede.

I do. I do not follow Rabinnic Law, though, except where I want to follow it. Rabinnic Law is not Biblical Law. I do enjoy lighting the Shabbat candles.

 

[Retro Rob]

I do. I do not follow Rabinnic Law, though, except where I want to follow it. Rabinnic Law is not Biblical Law. I do enjoy lighting the Shabbat candles.

Well, show me in the Bible where Jesus commands us to follow the "Law".

He said, "I give you a new commandment, that you have love among yourselves - John 13:34.


He mentions here about a "New Covenant". Luke 22:20.

 

[werepossum]

I am glad you said this.

Actually, he did by keeping it perfectly.

To illustrate: A builder fulfills a contract to complete a building, not by ripping up the contract, but by finishing the structure. However, once the work has been completed to the client’s satisfaction, the contract is fulfilled and the builder is no longer under obligation to it. Likewise, Jesus did not break, or rip up, the Law; rather, he fulfilled it by keeping it perfectly. Once fulfilled, that Law “contract” was no longer binding on God’s people

Jesus was born an Israelite and as such was under Law, and that included the Sabbath law. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away. (Colossians 2:13, 14)

Interesting discussion, and quite relevant.

The Law of Moses was not removed by Jesus. He very specifically said He did not come to destroy the law*, but to complete it. Now, The Law has only ever applied to the Jews (Israelites, who we now call Jews), those who decided to bind themselves to Israel when The Law was given, and the decendants of both. Over time, those who bound themselves to The Law were simply considered Jews.

The Law does not apply to the Goyim - the non-Jews. Never has. The place in the New Testament where people should look for the rules on sexual conduct is in Acts 15 (bolding mine):


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 15&version=NLT

What constitutes sexual immorality? That would be based on the view of those who said it. Those who said it were devout Jews, so their view is that of a devout Jew, which would be based entirely on The Law.

It is like US laws being based on English Common Law. The US does not follow English laws, we have our own system. Our system is based on theirs, though, and some of our laws are understood better by looking at the system on which they are based. Courts still use English Common Law when reviewing some cases where it is relevant.

This means many sexual things are forbidden. Mon and son, dad and daughter, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, beastiality, necrophilia, and more.




*Interesting aside. When a Jew is teaching about The Law, and he teaches correctly, it is said that he has completed The Law in that he has upheld the requirements to correctly teach it to others so they can follow it. When a Jew teaches incorrectly, he is said to be destroying The Law, in that he is poisoning the minds of others and destroying what these people are to learn. Jesus was using a dual meaning when he said that phrase...he meant it in both that he was teaching The Law properly AND that The Law was still going to be in effect after He died.

Interesting posts. Thanks, guys.

 

[werepossum]

You're joking right.

Every ancient civilization has a flood myth/story because, wait for it, most ancient civilizations developed next to rivers. And what do rivers do every once in a while?

It's not somehow an argument for some worldwide flood, which is physically impossible.

The reasons the flood could not possibly have happened, at least not as described, are numerous.

Going just with geological evidence, let alone the biological, mathematically speaking there simply isn't enough water on the planet to cover every mountain to the highest peak. Using the most advanced estimates we have for the volume of water contained in every ocean, river, lake, glacier, borehole, mud puddle, and ice cube, you would still need more than 3 times the amount of water on the planet to cover it. I can demonstrate this mathematically if necessary.

Second, we have icecaps. Had the flood occurred, the icecaps would have been destroyed by the strain of the flood, Antarctica in particular.

Third, the world does not display a pattern of uniform erosion consistent with the entire planet being submerged, nor a fossil record that shows a mass extinction event that recently in our history.

Fourth, we have continuous ice cores back over 100,000 years that show no evidence of a global flood during that period.

That's not even getting into archeological evidence that shows certain civilizations like the Egyptians and Sumerians existed before, during, and after the flood period, and that certain cities like Jericho and Damascus have been continuously inhabited for more than ten thousand years, or that we still have things like plants which would have been wiped out during a flood. The amount of evidence against the flood is simply overwhelming, every relevant field of science saying it is impossible based on the state of the Earth today.

Setting aside that liberals are now telling us we're causing another Great Flood via global warming, it would not have had to flood the entire world to cover the highest peaks. If the civilization were in a basin such as the Mediterranean, a flood of Biblical proportions could have flooded their area to the point of the Biblical description. People in any particular area and era tended to assume that people and conditions in other areas and eras were essentially the same, as witnessed by Medieval artists depicting Jesus in medieval dress and grooming. If people on the Arc could not see land for forty days, they would have assumed that the entire world was submerged.

 

[cybrsage]

Well, show me in the Bible where Jesus commands us to follow the "Law".

He said, "I give you a new commandment, that you have love among yourselves - John 13:34.

A new commandment does not remove the old commandments. God Himself commanded the Jews to follow The Law - Jesus did not have to say what was already known. If you are not Jewish, you have nothing to worry about, The Law never applied to you, and will never apply to you (until the time when Jesus sets up His kingdom on the Earth - one of the reasons why the nations will rage against Him).

He mentions here about a "New Covenant". Luke 22:20.

Each time a New Covenant was given, the Old Covenant was not removed. God made a covenant Adam which is still in effect, with Noah which is still in effect, with Abraham which is still in effect, and one with David which is still in effect. Why would the one with Moses go away when none of the others did?

Now, the wonderful thing about the sacrifice Jesus made is that the penalties of not following The Law are nullified - they have been paid for already for those who believe in Him and his actions. The Law is still there, though. The beauty of it is that following God's commands makes God happy, in that we are showing we love Him. Jews get rewards for following The Law and punishments for not following it. Since Jesus paid the penalty already for not following it, all I am left with is the rewards.

This does not mean I should go out and purposefully violate it, any more than knowing you will get into Heaven via your faith in Jesus means you should go out and rape or murder at will.

Paul was also made it very clear that he did not violate any of The Law when they arrested him and charged him with it.

Acts 24 (Bolding Mine)
10 The governor then motioned for Paul to speak. Paul said, “I know, sir, that you have been a judge of Jewish affairs for many years, so I gladly present my defense before you. 11 You can quickly discover that I arrived in Jerusalem no more than twelve days ago to worship at the Temple. 12 My accusers never found me arguing with anyone in the Temple, nor stirring up a riot in any synagogue or on the streets of the city. 13 These men cannot prove the things they accuse me of doing.
14 “But I admit that I follow the Way, which they call a cult. I worship the God of our ancestors, and I firmly believe the Jewish law and everything written in the prophets. 15 I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous. 16 Because of this, I always try to maintain a clear conscience before God and all people.
17 “After several years away, I returned to Jerusalem with money to aid my people and to offer sacrifices to God. 18 My accusers saw me in the Temple as I was completing a purification ceremony. There was no crowd around me and no rioting.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+24&version=NLT

This is why you have to look at who Paul was writing to in his various letters. Letters to Goyim give different instructions than those to Jews. The mixed group letters pose more of a problem, as you have to carefully follow along.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Not nearly as bad as the trap where he lures you into a bar making you believe you will see hot women stripping only to find it is a gay bar. You end up catching gay and before you know it you are french kissing the guy bringing you your drinks...

I hear that happens to a lot of "Straight" guys who go to Thailand.

 

[zsdersw]

Not nearly as bad as the trap where he lures you into a bar making you believe you will see hot women stripping only to find it is a gay bar. You end up catching gay and before you know it you are french kissing the guy bringing you your drinks...

I seriously doubt any of the heterosexual P&N regulars are good-looking enough for that to happen.

 

[cybrsage]

I seriously doubt any of the heterosexual P&N regulars are good-looking enough for that to happen.

I was hoping you would see it for the joke it was intended to be. I made sure I included the "catch gay" part so you would be sure. A person can "catch gay" as easily as they can "catch black".