homosexuality, women and the NT

[jonesthecurl]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

Don't see many demonstrations outside Wall St, centre of selfish ambition.

[natty dread]

I've always wondered, what happens to bisexuals according to teh bible? Will one half go to heaven and the other in hell? Or will they spend weekdays in heaven and weekends at hell? Is Satan like a weekend dad who takes them bowling and later gets drunk and cries about how God is a bitch who took all his money in the divorce?

[rdsrds2120]

I've always wondered, what happens to bisexuals according to teh bible? Will one half go to heaven and the other in hell? Or will they spend weekdays in heaven and weekends at hell? Is Satan like a weekend dad who takes them bowling and later gets drunk and cries about how God is a bitch who took all his money in the divorce?

Now I really wonder what happens to pansexuals.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

I've always wondered, what happens to bisexuals according to teh bible? Will one half go to heaven and the other in hell? Or will they spend weekdays in heaven and weekends at hell? Is Satan like a weekend dad who takes them bowling and later gets drunk and cries about how God is a bitch who took all his money in the divorce?

Now I really wonder what happens to pansexuals.

-rd

Those filthy buggers go TO HELL! Why? BECAUSE MY SPECIAL BOOK HERE SAYS SO! Do you disagree? WELL UR WRONG!!!!

BBS, the Devout: +1
rds: -10 (plus an all expenses paid trip to hell)

[heavycola]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

Don't see many demonstrations outside Wall St, centre of selfish ambition.

Yeah that's what i thought when I first read that list of sins. I mean the whole bedrock of capitalism is selfish ambition...

dwilhelm your differentiation between sexual immorality and the other sins in that list makes sense up to a point, at least as far as we assume that homosexuality falls under thae former's umbrella. But if we are comparing homosexuality to other 'sins' on that list, then that raises a few questions.
When the Dalai Lama was asked about gay marriage during a tour of the US a few years back he said simply 'it does no harm', which is the most reasonable and grown-up response. Any loving relationship is not only harmless, unlike selfish ambition, hatred, jealousy etc - it has the opposite effect for those involved. Stable and loving relationships are part of god's plan, right, and god made everyone the way they are, so two men in a stable and loving relationship does no harm whatsoever and in fact should please god.

[comic boy]

Dwilhelmi
I have some sympathy with your position in regard to the semantics involved and agree that safeguards would be needed to protect the sanctity of 'religious' marriage . Church ceremonies to me are simply tradition , but I appreciate that to you and other Christians they hold greater significance, nobody should be given the legal right to usurp such beliefs.
I appreciate the fact that many dismiss such fears as a slippery slope argument but I disagree, history shows us that militants on either side take great pleasure in exploiting deficient legislation so safeguards need to be locked tightly in .
Having said that , I do however strongly disagree with you on another point, there are striking similarities with this current issue and the previous civil rights struggles . However much you might wish to ignore the fact , much historical racial discrimination was based on biblical ' interpretation ' . The classic instance would be apartheid in South Africa which was directly driven by the teachings of the Dutch Reform Church , the rest of the western world pretty much followed along citing enlightenment as its excuse to exploit the ' Godless ' natives.

[crispybits]

I've always wondered, what happens to bisexuals according to teh bible? Will one half go to heaven and the other in hell? Or will they spend weekdays in heaven and weekends at hell? Is Satan like a weekend dad who takes them bowling and later gets drunk and cries about how God is a bitch who took all his money in the divorce?

Now I really wonder what happens to pansexuals.

-rd

Are they the ones that made the materials for panspermia?

[thegreekdog]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

Bear with me here. If the government's definition of marriage is currently "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman entered into via license from a local jurisdiction" and the government changes it to "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman" you would have a problem with that? If that's your problem (the definition), then what if the government eliminates the word "marriage" from its lexicon and instead uses the phrase "interpersonal union" and defines that as "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman?" Does that solve your problem? In the interest of full disclosure, the phrase "interpresonal union" would apply only for government purposes and would apply equally to gay marriage and straight marriage. So for the purposes of the government, the interpersonal union of a man and a man would be accorded the same status as an interpersonal union of a man and a woman.

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

This I disagree with, given the way the situation is being approached. What do you think would happen to a church today that was unwilling to marry an interracial couple? Would it be OK? I don't think so. When the government labels something as discriminatory, that has very far reaching effects. However, if the definition of marriage was to be voted by the majority to be between any two people, I would not object to that. In that case, I would be content that the government defines it differently than I do, and be relatively content that I would be free to continue in my own beliefs.

The government has no say as to whether a church refuses to marry an interracial couple or any couple at all. Simply put, the government recognition of gay marriage would literally change nothing about who churches can or cannot marry or recognize. Further, by defining the term "marriage" to include "gay marriage," the government is not labelling someone who does not recognize gay marriage discriminatory. Or maybe the government is, but it certainly cannot force a religious institution to recognize it. To put it another, more personal way, as a Roman Catholic, I would be vehemently against government recognition of gay marriage if the Catholic church was forced to recognize and/or marry gays.

There is no action you are required to take if gay marriage is recognized by the state. The government is not forcing you to act. What opponents of gay marriage are doing is prohibiting others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship because if offends their religions. Offending a religion is not a compelling state interest and is certainly not, in the history of this country, an adequate basis for the government to prevent someone from doing something.

I am not at all attempting to prohibit others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship. I have never once claimed that homosexuals should not be allowed to be together. They can have their relationship all they want.

You are attempting to prohibit others from having the same government-provided benefits (and detriments) as you are provided (if you are married). This is a violation of the equal protection clause.

I'm not suggesting you are a bigot. I'm just not sure you understand what "marriage" means in terms of the government or that there is a difference between government-defined marriage and religiously-defined marriage. Gays and their supporters are concerned merely with how the government defines marriage, not how religions define marriage.

[Ray Rider]

Having said that , I do however strongly disagree with you on another point, there are striking similarities with this current issue and the previous civil rights struggles . However much you might wish to ignore the fact , much historical racial discrimination was based on biblical ' interpretation ' . The classic instance would be apartheid in South Africa which was directly driven by the teachings of the Dutch Reform Church , the rest of the western world pretty much followed along citing enlightenment as its excuse to exploit the ' Godless ' natives.

And however much you may wish to ignore the fact, much of the historical freedom of slaves and 'racial' integration which began to occurr in many nations, especially in the 1800s, was based on biblical interpretation also. The classic instance would be William Wilberforce's outstanding, tireless devotion to abolishing slavery in the vast British Empire which turn had a great impact on slavery in France, America, and other nations.

[crispybits]

Who is ignoring that? Nobody stated that religious people through religious conviction haven't done some damn fine things over the centuries. Merely that religion has been used by other people to enforce discrimination and oppression, and where it is seen to still be doing so it is the responsibility of both theists and athiests alike to hold a light up to that and make sure it is defeated.

[comic boy]

Having said that , I do however strongly disagree with you on another point, there are striking similarities with this current issue and the previous civil rights struggles . However much you might wish to ignore the fact , much historical racial discrimination was based on biblical ' interpretation ' . The classic instance would be apartheid in South Africa which was directly driven by the teachings of the Dutch Reform Church , the rest of the western world pretty much followed along citing enlightenment as its excuse to exploit the ' Godless ' natives.

And however much you may wish to ignore the fact, much of the historical freedom of slaves and 'racial' integration which began to occurr in many nations, especially in the 1800s, was based on biblical interpretation also. The classic instance would be William Wilberforce's outstanding, tireless devotion to abolishing slavery in the vast British Empire which turn had a great impact on slavery in France, America, and other nations.

Are you suggesting that the fact that notable Christian campaigners fought to right earlier wrongs somehow nulifies my general point , hardly . Politicians in the Southern States of the USA were still quoting biblical references to excuse their racial bigotrty in the 1960's , what exactly do you deduce from that ?
It appears that you viewed my post as anti Christian , pretty odd considering that the initial part sympathised with the OP and went on to defend traditional religious marriage. I guess its easier just to demonise a supposed liberal than attempt to comprehend what they actually say, shame !

[dwilhelmi]

Simply put, any objection to gay marriage is based upon an irrational fear (I think the same about polygamy).

False. My objection to gay marriage is that the majority of the voters in this country believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has been proven 31 times so far. Definition of a word used within governmental language should be up to popular vote - providing of benefits should not. I would fully support quests for homosexuals to have their unions be provided with the same benefits as marriage. I would also fully support removing marriage from the government books entirely, and having the benefits either no longer exist or apply only to "all civil unions", of which marriage would be one form. However, it is not the place of the judicial branch to force me to say that something I believe is sinful (homosexuality) and something that I believe is sacred (marriage) is in fact the same thing.

You object to gay marriage because the majority objects to gay marriage? I'm not sure I understand that. There are numerous moments in history where the majority's opinion resulted in the oppression of the minority. This is why we have a representative government that consists of three branches, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. As far as I'm concerned (and our forefathers are concerned) that's an invalid argument.

In what way is defining marriage as one man and one woman oppression, provided that homosexual relationships are provided the same benefits? I see no problem with word definition being driven by majority opinion.

Bear with me here. If the government's definition of marriage is currently "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman entered into via license from a local jurisdiction" and the government changes it to "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman" you would have a problem with that? If that's your problem (the definition), then what if the government eliminates the word "marriage" from its lexicon and instead uses the phrase "interpersonal union" and defines that as "an interpersonal relationship between one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman?" Does that solve your problem? In the interest of full disclosure, the phrase "interpresonal union" would apply only for government purposes and would apply equally to gay marriage and straight marriage. So for the purposes of the government, the interpersonal union of a man and a man would be accorded the same status as an interpersonal union of a man and a woman.

Yes, I would be fine with this. In fact, I've stated that a few times in this thread already . Marriage is a very charged term, that a lot of people hold very strong beliefs about. I would argue that taking the term out of the government entirely would be the best overall solution.

You are correct, it is not the place of government to tell you what your religious beliefs are. And it is not your place to impose your own religious beliefs on others through the use of government. You don't, personally, have to recognize gay marriage if the federal government recognizes gay marriage. It does not impact your religious beliefs in any way whatsoever. You can still believe that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are wrong. There are plenty of examples of this going on right now. For example, I don't believe that people should have premarital sex. It is legal to have premarital sex. The government does not force me to believe that premarital sex is right; they simply recognize that people can have premarital sex.

This I disagree with, given the way the situation is being approached. What do you think would happen to a church today that was unwilling to marry an interracial couple? Would it be OK? I don't think so. When the government labels something as discriminatory, that has very far reaching effects. However, if the definition of marriage was to be voted by the majority to be between any two people, I would not object to that. In that case, I would be content that the government defines it differently than I do, and be relatively content that I would be free to continue in my own beliefs.

The government has no say as to whether a church refuses to marry an interracial couple or any couple at all. Simply put, the government recognition of gay marriage would literally change nothing about who churches can or cannot marry or recognize. Further, by defining the term "marriage" to include "gay marriage," the government is not labelling someone who does not recognize gay marriage discriminatory. Or maybe the government is, but it certainly cannot force a religious institution to recognize it. To put it another, more personal way, as a Roman Catholic, I would be vehemently against government recognition of gay marriage if the Catholic church was forced to recognize and/or marry gays.

Unfortunately, there are many ways in which someone can be "forced" to do something. For example, the government might say that churches can do whatever they want, but if they refuse to marry gay couples then they will simply lose their tax exempt status. Even though churches in that case would not be being forced to perform gay marriages, they might find themselves in a heap of trouble - losing tax exempt status can be a death blow to churches. That is a very real possibility, too - http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestax ... policy.htm

There is no action you are required to take if gay marriage is recognized by the state. The government is not forcing you to act. What opponents of gay marriage are doing is prohibiting others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship because if offends their religions. Offending a religion is not a compelling state interest and is certainly not, in the history of this country, an adequate basis for the government to prevent someone from doing something.

I am not at all attempting to prohibit others from engaging in an interpersonal relationship. I have never once claimed that homosexuals should not be allowed to be together. They can have their relationship all they want.

You are attempting to prohibit others from having the same government-provided benefits (and detriments) as you are provided (if you are married). This is a violation of the equal protection clause.

I'm not suggesting you are a bigot. I'm just not sure you understand what "marriage" means in terms of the government or that there is a difference between government-defined marriage and religiously-defined marriage. Gays and their supporters are concerned merely with how the government defines marriage, not how religions define marriage.

I have no problem with others getting the same government-provided benefits. My problem is that I do not see a difference between government-defined marriage and religious-defined marriage. One bleeds over into the other. In the minds of the people, marriage is marriage. You can't separate it.

[crispybits]

So do you consider heterosexuals who have had secular marriage services with no religious involvement, or those married under the customs of other religions, as married dwilhelmi?

[dwilhelmi]

So here homosexuality is a subcategory of sexual immorality etc, but it is ranked alongside jealousy, discord (??), selfish ambition... yet there are no demonstrations against these sins.

The difference here, I think, is that today homosexuality is being portrayed as just fine. Nobody thinks that jealousy and selfish ambition are just fine. Nobody holds Selfish Ambition Pride Rallies. It is one thing to admit that sin is committed, as it is committed by every single person alive; it is quite another thing to embrace sin, brag about sin, to make sin the center of one's life. I think that is why so much more attention is given to homosexuality over these other sins.

Don't see many demonstrations outside Wall St, centre of selfish ambition.

Yeah that's what i thought when I first read that list of sins. I mean the whole bedrock of capitalism is selfish ambition...

dwilhelm your differentiation between sexual immorality and the other sins in that list makes sense up to a point, at least as far as we assume that homosexuality falls under thae former's umbrella. But if we are comparing homosexuality to other 'sins' on that list, then that raises a few questions.
When the Dalai Lama was asked about gay marriage during a tour of the US a few years back he said simply 'it does no harm', which is the most reasonable and grown-up response. Any loving relationship is not only harmless, unlike selfish ambition, hatred, jealousy etc - it has the opposite effect for those involved. Stable and loving relationships are part of god's plan, right, and god made everyone the way they are, so two men in a stable and loving relationship does no harm whatsoever and in fact should please god.

Just to make it clear, this post is in regards to my personal belief, and not in regards to public policy regarding homosexuality or marriage.

Just because a sin "does no harm" does not make it not a sin. Stable and loving heterosexual relationships are part of God's plan. Deciding that you know better than God what constitutes sin, and living your life in such a way as to embrace that sin, can be very damaging to yourself. There are many other sins that don't hurt anybody, but are still sins and can cause damage to yourself. Gluttony, for example. It doesn't hurt anybody else, in fact it helps a good number of people who are selling you all of your food. It is pleasing to yourself, as boy golly does food taste good. In the long run, however, it is very damaging to yourself, and is still sinful. A greater test is required than "does it hurt anybody".

[dwilhelmi]

So do you consider heterosexuals who have had secular marriage services with no religious involvement, or those married under the customs of other religions, as married dwilhelmi?

Yes. My personal definition of marriage is "a promise of lifelong commitment between one of-age human male and one of-age human female".

[dwilhelmi]

Strongly disagree. The "separate but equal" that you are referring to was the racial equality fiasco, and this was more in regards to physical separation. They tried saying that black people could be in a different building from white people, so long as both were given the same treatment. That is not the same thing as government benefits in regards to relationship type. It seems like it would be a fairly simple matter to define the laws in such a way that benefits would apply equally to both.

So black people and white people can't be treated the same within supposedly identical legal and practical frameworks, but gay people and straight people can? What's the difference between the two?

The scope of the "discrimination" in question. Racial discrimination was a very far reaching problem. Homosexual "discrimination" in this case is regarding only benefits supplied to someone engaged in a particular contract. Nobody is saying that homosexuals can't ride in the front of the bus, or use the same schools, or eat in the same restaurants. It is the definition of the contract. Just like I, as a white male, cannot be considered for an ethnic or female based scholarship. That is not discrimination, just the definition of the contract in question.

There are plenty of instances where you can have things that are separate but equal. For example, black history month is separate from hispanic heritage month, but both are perfectly equal. The Olympics is separate from the Special Olympics, and that is not considered discrimination at all. In a slightly less flippant example, there is a separation between Single and Married in the government today, and that is handled quite well as far as I know.

Any examples of actual legal rights and benefits? Single and married don't get treated the same by the way, married people get a whole bunch more benefits from that than single people do, so that's not separate but equal. Events like the Olympics and BHM / HHM are hardly at even remotely the same level in so far as this conversation is concerned. Please give a working example (just one will do), where all sides are happy, of the government maintaining a "separate but equal" policy with regard to legal rights.

As the one claiming "separate but equal" never works, I challenge you to give one example other than racial segregation where it didn't work. Or even how it wouldn't work in this case. If the government says that anyone with a civil union be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital, how would that not work?

You argue that because "separate but equal" didn't work in the case of a wide spread epidemic of horrible magnitude, reaching down into just about every single walk of life and thing that everyone did on a day to day basis, that it obviously won't work in any other case?

If that was really a hold up, then there are still other solutions, such as making all interpersonal relationships receive the same benefits, and taking marriage out of it.

So when does the relationship start? When you have the first date? When you first kiss? When you first sleep together or move in together? All of those hardly seem logical compared to a simple ceremony of commitment like a civil union or a marriage, where both parties enter into it in a considered and thoughtful way (unless you're in Vegas of course)

I didn't mean any relationship you want, obviously. I was still referring to an official governmental-recognized contract that could be entered into by any two individuals.

The point is, though, that we are really defining what marriage is. Once the definition is decided, we can move on to determining the best way to handle benefits in a way that is fair to everyone involved.

We are correcting law based on the basic assumptions of freedom, liberty and equality for all. We're not being pedantic for no reason, we're extending rights that have been denied to a significant minority in society while freely given to everyone else, and semantics is the priority? Really?

I am all for freedom, liberty and equality for all. I just want to do it in the right way. Instead of the quick and dirty way that tramples on the deeply held belief of a majority of the people in this country, I want to work towards a solution that would make everyone happy. I think that is worth a bit of additional up front effort.

[jimboston]

Should women be this silent and submissive? Is this how christian men are supposed to treat their wives and daughters?
If not, why are these instructions from Paul dispensable while his instruction on same-sex shagging are not?

Yes, yes, this looks like a troll thread, but i am genuinely interested in this apparent discrepancy that was only pointed out to me yesterday by a theologian buddy.

What discrepancy?

It's pretty clear that (according to the Bible) women should be silent and submissive... and have no authority over men.

Now... that's the law of the Roman Catholic Bible... not the secular law of this land.

Therefore... secular women who don't subscribe to this Theology... can continue to speak, and hold positions of authority, and teach... etc.

However... any woman who subscribes to Catholic (and probably most Christian) Teaching and Theology should be submissive and silent. Any woman who says she is Catholic/Christian and does not act in this manner is a Hypocrite.

If the Catholic Church (or other Christian Sects) disagree with these writings of St. Paul they should have the guts to publicly state this... AND THEN REMOVE THESE WRITINGS from the Bible.

If these writings are not true... then why would any Church leave them in their Holy Bible? Why not say "Listen... we talked and prayed... and having prayed to God we believe that this is not God's intention, and are therefore removing it from the Bible."

If it's not true... then strike it!

Personally I disagree with St. Paul and that is one (of many) reasons I am not longer Christian.

[jimboston]

Well the obvious response is that thoughtful Christians recognise that social mores have evolved over time and disregard certain scripture as no longer relevent . There are of course those who insist that every word of the bible is literal and must be followed to the letter, the mennonite sects spring to mind , but even they are having a hard time these days holding on to such a standard.
By contrast an increasing number pretend a literal belief though in truth they are merely cherry picking scripture to further particular agendas , do they think that an omnipresent God might not notice the hypocrisy

So why don't these "thoughtful Christians" amend the Bible to acknowledge the fact that these writings where just the OPINION of St. Paul.... and NOT the intent and Word of God... and if so acknowledged... why not remove them from the Bible.

Oh... and yes... it's been done before.
(The BIble being amended to fit the social norms of the time that is... it was done by Emperor Constantine.)

[jimboston]

I suspect there are some (and not an insignificant amount of) Christian sects who believe that women should be submissive.

Yes there are... and you don't have to look hard to find them.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/c ... utterites/

Have you ever watched "Meet the Hutterites"?

Girls... in the USA... told to quit high school because they "don't need an education" and they "have duties to the colony" (like cooking and cleaning).

[jimboston]

That is a good point.
I agree with the Bible on this. I left a church that had women teaching men. Women can teach women.

Huh?

[jimboston]

One thing I like about the Catholic Church is that it forbids ordination of women. They can have roles in the administration of the church, and in regular orders by becoming nuns, but they are inherently unqualified to perform the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

If you don't like it, join a different religion.

Yet they allow Nuns to TEACH in Catholic schools.

How is that in line with St. Paul's words???

[jimboston]

What is NT?

New Testatment?

The subject of bad writing is not limited to the New Testament.

[comic boy]

Well the obvious response is that thoughtful Christians recognise that social mores have evolved over time and disregard certain scripture as no longer relevent . There are of course those who insist that every word of the bible is literal and must be followed to the letter, the mennonite sects spring to mind , but even they are having a hard time these days holding on to such a standard.
By contrast an increasing number pretend a literal belief though in truth they are merely cherry picking scripture to further particular agendas , do they think that an omnipresent God might not notice the hypocrisy

So why don't these "thoughtful Christians" amend the Bible to acknowledge the fact that these writings where just the OPINION of St. Paul.... and NOT the intent and Word of God... and if so acknowledged... why not remove them from the Bible.

Oh... and yes... it's been done before.
(The BIble being amended to fit the social norms of the time that is... it was done by Emperor Constantine.)

Well you hit the nail on the head with Constantine , religion has always been as much concerned with the exercise of power as it has been with piety,devotion or morality.

[jimboston]

While the NT does a lot to cancel out a good portion of the OT restrictions...

How is that possible?

According to Christian beliefs... both the NT and OT are "THE WORD OF GOD".

How can God's "Word" cancel out God's "Word"?

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to admit that some people in the past have misinterpreted God's Word... and then revise the Book/Bible so that it only includes what we now believe to be the True Word???

[jimboston]

Well the obvious response is that thoughtful Christians recognise that social mores have evolved over time and disregard certain scripture as no longer relevent . There are of course those who insist that every word of the bible is literal and must be followed to the letter, the mennonite sects spring to mind , but even they are having a hard time these days holding on to such a standard.
By contrast an increasing number pretend a literal belief though in truth they are merely cherry picking scripture to further particular agendas , do they think that an omnipresent God might not notice the hypocrisy

So why don't these "thoughtful Christians" amend the Bible to acknowledge the fact that these writings where just the OPINION of St. Paul.... and NOT the intent and Word of God... and if so acknowledged... why not remove them from the Bible.

Oh... and yes... it's been done before.
(The BIble being amended to fit the social norms of the time that is... it was done by Emperor Constantine.)

Well you hit the nail on the head with Constantine , religion has always been as much concerned with the exercise of power as it has been with piety,devotion or morality.

So are you admitting the the Bible is not really "God's Word"?

That it is really a collection of writings by people... and that often these writings have been full of errors in the interpretation.

Now admitting this... is it fair to say we should revise the BIble to exclude what we now consider to be prior errors in interpretation?