Continuation of Christianity debate.

[CrazyAnglican]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Ok, if you would like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, look at Romans 1:26&27. 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That last part is kinda scary, considering the AIDS crisis.

Thanks. Really, thanks. But I was looking for a verse in the New Testiment about the repeal of the dietary laws (ie: No rabbit, clams, etc.). I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking.

That sounds like something early in church history. Paul's letters? Circumcision? I'll look for it too.

[Jenos Ridan]

As for the homosexuality part, rich Roman men of the Apposel's time were well documented to take little boys to bed with them. And the Old Testement doen't actually use that word, but rather describes in (thankfully) limited detail the act of homosexuallity.

So, the one line in Leviticus, which everyone uses to condemn homosexuality, may have been written to slight the Romans?

It is well established that the various codes and laws in Leviticus were written during a time when these things were deemed necessary. This was a time where if you planted wheat and barley in the same row that both plants would die. How do you get someone to not do that anymore? Threaten them with death.

Everything in Leviticus has been left behind, practically, except for that one line about homosexuality.

Maybe its time we moved on from that anyhow?

Ok, if you would like a New Testament reference to homosexuality, look at Romans 1:26&27. 26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. 27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. That last part is kinda scary, considering the AIDS crisis.

Thanks. Really, thanks. But I was looking for a verse in the New Testiment about the repeal of the dietary laws (ie: No rabbit, clams, etc.). I can't seem to find it. I'll keep looking.

That sounds like something early in church history. Paul's letters? Circumcision? I'll look for it too.

Thanks.

[Colossus]

Colossus, could you give an example of hidden meaning that you have found by applying this metaphorical approach?

Great point. I will absolutely offer an example as best I can. I am heading off on vacation for the next week and a half, so I'll try to isolate one by the time I get back. The conclusions I've come to or truths that I've found are more than can be quickly described in a very succinct example off the top of my head, I think. Sorry, I don't have time before we leave, and I promised the wife I'd do a CC detox while we are gone!

[2dimes]

I think I agree with what you're saying Collosus. I didn't quote it. One more thing I think regarding the Old testament is that it was written to a specific audience.

I find it interesting that some of the food laws still would be pretty good to follow and back when written might have saved your life.

Then again I'm happy to eat shrimp and bacon in faith.

[dnucci]

Please explain why gnosticism is contrary to scripture. Saying "end of story" doesn't really cut it.

Gnostic teaching holds that the 'God' who was father to Jesus (and by way of the Trinity, Jesus too) was not the same 'God' who created the world. Scripture is clear on this point.

I have not ever heard that connected with "Gnostic teaching". Can you point me in the direction of your source?

[2dimes]

The idea that such contextual subtleties CAN be lost in translation and the impact that has on the meaning of scripture.

What is the impact of Peter using a different word?

[Colossus]

it is the difference between conditional and unconditional. the difference between partial commitment and total commitment, which I think is a pretty big difference.

[2dimes]

So will that make it more difficult to feed his sheep?

[dnucci]

Colossus, could you give an example of hidden meaning that you have found by applying this metaphorical approach?

Great point. I will absolutely offer an example as best I can. I am heading off on vacation for the next week and a half, so I'll try to isolate one by the time I get back. The conclusions I've come to or truths that I've found are more than can be quickly described in a very succinct example off the top of my head, I think. Sorry, I don't have time before we leave, and I promised the wife I'd do a CC detox while we are gone!

I can provide one of the top of my head, but many people won't like to hear it.

I find it fascinating that Jesus spoke in parables, a manner of communication that defies literal translation, and yet, that metaphor is not expanded to his deeds. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ continues to be interpreted literally, but does it not also have power as metaphor?

In terms of matter: Every cell in your body is different from the cells that were in your body 10 years ago. In terms of material, your body is in a constant state of dying, and yet you regenerate and new cells are reborn. Matter is constantly emerging into "you" and emerging out of "you." Death doesn't happen at some point in the future, it is a constant process right now.

In terms of energy: The energy that gives you life comes from the world around you. It comes from sun and from food. When you die, does that energy end? No, it is transferred to other segments of reality, back into the cosmic soup. So, energy is constantly emerging into "you" and emerging out of "you." Death doesn't happen at some point in the future, it is a constant process right now.

Death is a fiction, for in terms of matter and energy we are in a constant state of "death". The real problem here . . . is the "you". It is only the idea of "self" that does not continue. Self is a fiction. Jesus tells us to "die to self". When the self is dissolved, so is the false separation between all that is "you" and all that is "not you", and matter and energy can be seen as one continuum. (**side note: In fact, brain research has shown that people in deep states of mediation or prayer have measureable affects on their brains, the most prominent of which is differences in the cerebellum, an area devoted to balance. In order for it to work, the body has to know what constitutes "my body" and what constitutes "not my body" so that it can move through space. The mediators and prayers when experiencing the greatest spiritual experience, were physically losing track of what was "self" and what was "not self"**)

If you can die to self, if you can abandon the idea, the notion of a persona independent and separate from the rest of the Universe, then you come closer to living in the present, in the now. And what did Jesus say? "the Kingdom of God is at Hand". It is now. "God is the god of the living not of the dead," Jesus said. Living Now is Heaven, and without the self . . . there is no death.

On a much more menial level, who of us has not seen life through new eyes when we experience the death of an old notion, assumption, or idea that was actually serving as an imprisonment of and for our own minds? But the death of these ideas is not easy. It is accompanied by great suffering.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ himself is the most potent metaphor in the Bible.

[Jenos Ridan]

Please explain why gnosticism is contrary to scripture. Saying "end of story" doesn't really cut it.

Gnostic teaching holds that the 'God' who was father to Jesus (and by way of the Trinity, Jesus too) was not the same 'God' who created the world. Scripture is clear on this point.

I have not ever heard that connected with "Gnostic teaching". Can you point me in the direction of your source?

It escapes at this time, but I'll find it.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Colossus, could you give an example of hidden meaning that you have found by applying this metaphorical approach?

Almost all bible stories can be interprited this way. It makes sense to many modern Christians that the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken literally. At the time the bible was written it made sense to explain the creation of the world in 6 days as long as it got the point across that God created the world. With the level of scientific advancement coupled with the lack of general education at the time the bible could not possibly have begun to expain to people that the world was created over millions of years coupled with evolution etc. As a basis for explaining that God created the world genisis serves it's purpose.

Jesus taught his followers using parables the meaning and lesson is within the story.

When you look at the bible as a collection of stories to teach people 1000s of years ago it is important to understand that the culture and level of education of the people the bible was written for was vastly different to yourself. In fact it is amazing that the messages of the bible are still so meaningful to people in this day and age.

Lets take the following parable:

Luke 5:37,38 No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved. No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’"

This will make next to no sense to someone today (I know I've never even SEEN a wineskin) just reading the bible off hand but back in the day people would know that the fermenting of new wine builds up pressure which will burst old wineskins. Biblical Christianity has a great deal of power and activity associated with it. It 'explodes' out of the boundaries of Israel and continues to cross all kinds of boundaries. It cannot be contained. Neither can its practice be limited to a set of commandments. The Holy Spirit ferments the believer, helping him to infer applications from the Bible that apply to his particular situation. And having been fermented, believers are sometimes literally mistaken for drunkards.

The old covenant had finished fermenting. Not only that, but Israel had drunken it down and now all that was left was an old wineskin it had been contained in. Yes, it was good wine, having been aged. But its time was over. Its effect was completed and the fulness of the times had come for the new wine of the new covenant.

But then the most reluctant people to accept the new wine were those Jewish religious leaders, drunk on the old wine. So drunk that they kill their own Messiah. They considered the old wine better. But the Gentiles accepted the new wine.

EDIT/ADDENDUM: I just want to add that how Christians interprit the bible is loosely based on whether they believe that the bible is the direct word of God passed unaltered staight from God through the hand of a human onto the paper or whether the bible was written by humans who were inspired by God. Obviously if you believe that it is the direct word of God then it is infallible and you would be more likely to take everything literally. Those in the other camp are more likely to see the passages as open to interpritaton.

[Guiscard]

The idea that such contextual subtleties CAN be lost in translation and the impact that has on the meaning of scripture.

What is the impact of Peter using a different word?

I really don't mean to bang on about the 'homosexual' translation, but this is one where the words have been interpreted in context (for example 'soft like the clothes of those in court' to mean 'effeminite', then furthermore to mean 'homosexual'. People argue that when taken in the context of the passage, which primarily condemns established sins, makes perfect sense in condemning homosexuality, but when we look at the treatment of homosexuals over 200 years we can see what an absolutely massive difference a seemingly innocent translation can make. The terms used were vague (rather than the widely established Greek word for homosexual) yet millions, possibly billions, of people have been condemned to a lifetime of either hiding their true sexual feelings or being outcast, perhaps facing violence or even murder for a sin which is a great amount more vague than others which are equally as widespread (for example drunkeness). No-body gets lynched or hanged for being a drunkard, but homosexuals have been in the past in Christian societies (obviously not on a massive scale, but I just mean this as an example of the extremity elicited by such a vague passage).

[b.k. barunt]

You consider the passage in Romans to be vague? Please elaborate. There is no greek wordplay here, but some rather descriptive language. What part do you find vague?

[Anarchist]

An Example

"A man does not lay next to another man as he does a women"

sounds like if the parts dont fit you need to improvise....

ofcourse this can also mean lets burn faggots at the stake...

[captainvegetable]

An Example

"A man does not lay next to another man as he does a women"

sounds like if the parts dont fit you need to improvise....

ofcourse this can also mean lets burn faggots at the stake...

Excellent interpretation. I've been wanting to burn those fucking faggots for a long time. GET THE TORCHES!!! Damn religious fundamentalists....

[Guiscard]

You consider the passage in Romans to be vague? Please elaborate. There is no greek wordplay here, but some rather descriptive language. What part do you find vague?

This passage isn't so much vague in translation (Corinthians is the translation error) but vague in its meaning entirely (although perhaps the most obvious condemnation, if it is viewed as such).

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

The ArchBishop of Cantebury (head of the Anglican Chuch) explains it thus: "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

Other interpretations could read it as saying anyone going against there natural sexual preference are sinners, and indeed that would make both gay people who pretend to be straight and straight people who pretend to be gay wrong, but not homosexuals who do not deny their sexuality.

A further interpretation focusses on the original Greek translation and argues that it may well refer to pedastery (the sexual abuse of children)

This is another (pretty lengthy) quote from a theist who is looking at translation.

Romans 1:18-32 is a complex passage, and any quick reading of the English translations gives the clear impression that all forms of homosexuality are being condemned. However, the issue of whether or not homosexuality is sin should not rest on a quick reading of a translation. Digging into a passage, looking at patterns in and purposes of a passage as a whole is the only way that we can find out what any text is really about. This is true of Romans 1. English translations lack a dynamic quality that is found in the original language, and obscures patterns that help us clarify the meaning and purpose of the text. The primary pattern in this passage is the usage of the phrases "they exchanged" (met/yllaxan; v. 23, 25, 26b) and "God gave them over" (paradwken; v. 24, 26a, 28), which enclose three parallel thoughts between verses 23-28.

Parallelism is extremely common in the Hebraic wisdom literature (e.g., most of Proverbs), and involves repeating a thought in a different way for emphasis. Paul, having been trained as a Pharisee in the Old Testament Scriptures, would have been very familiar with this Biblical technique of emphasis, and it is clear from the structure of this passage that Paul is using this technique to emphasize God's wrath against the sin of idolatry. He begins in verses 18-20 by showing the readers that there is some part of God's character ("His eternal power and divine nature" NIV) that can be seen in creation itself, apart from the special revelation found in His Scriptures. Thus, even Greeks are without excuse as far as to whom they should direct their worship. Moreover, we are told that these Greeks did actually know God from His creation, however "they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks to Him" NIV v. 21). These Greeks, and Paul was specifically referring to all non-Jews (see v. 16 for Paul's breakdown of people-groups for this chapter: there are Jews, and then there is everybody else (hellyni), translated as Greeks in the NASB, and Gentiles in the NIV), were engaged in human philosophies (Stoicism, etc) and religions which sought to understand and worship creation apart from the Creator. Though they at one time knew God (v. 21), they eventually ended up in the position that they "did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" (NIV, v. 28). Paul shows us in this chapter that this progression of not glorifying God as God to abandoning the concept of God leads to any number of sinful behaviors (murder, etc), as described in the last several verses of the chapter (1:29-31). Finally, we see that while somehow these Gentiles knew the laws of God, and knew that breaking these laws deserve death, they not only practiced these behaviors, but approved of others who did the same (v. 32).

That is the general outline of the chapter. The primary focus of the chapter is on Gentiles who stop worshipping God, and who "exchange/substitute" (met/yllaxan) the worship of idols for the worship of God. While one could easily postulate that the substitution here could be extended metaphorically to anything which takes our focus off of God (human philosophies, busy-ness, religiosity, etc.), Paul's language here seems to limit us specifically to explicit idol worship. Both of the first two parallel passages (vs 23-24, 25-26a), which are clearly bounded by the repeated phrases "they exchanged" (met/yllaxan; this word refers to a substitution of one thing in place of another) and "God gave them over" (paradwken; this word refers to God allowing the natural course of events to occur from the behavior initiated by the Gentiles--God didn't "cause" them to have the "sinful desires" (v. 24), "shameful lusts" (v. 26a) or "depraved mind" (v. 28), but when the Gentiles abandoned God, paradwken implies that God stepped back and allowed the natural course of events to happen) very graphically describe idol worship as it would have been found in Greek and Roman cultic rituals of the time of Paul's writing.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in a passage such as this it should be simple enough to say 'It is a sin to be a homosexual.' But the passage is left open to interpretation, and to base centuries of persecution on interpretation is unforgivablle

[dnucci]

Well, not only that Guiscard, but Paul was writing for the Apocolypse. He, along with much of first century Christianity, thought the second coming was imminent. So, In Corinthians , when he said, "women obey your husbands", that dynamic is not meant to permeate the ages, but rather, he was saying . . .stop this ridiculous bickering amongst yourselves and in your own households because the End is Near and your focus should be on the second coming of Christ.

So, even if the meaning of some of these passages IS the same as its literal interpretation, the historical context and author bias reduces the efficacy of importing that message to the current age. (especially from Paul who was a zealot from the start).

[Guiscard]

Well, not only that Guiscard, but Paul was writing for the Apocolypse. He, along with much of first century Christianity, thought the second coming was imminent. So, In Corinthians , when he said, "women obey your husbands", that dynamic is not meant to permeate the ages, but rather, he was saying . . .stop this ridiculous bickering amongst yourselves and in your own households because the End is Near and your focus should be on the second coming of Christ.

So, even if the meaning of some of these passages IS the same as its literal interpretation, the historical context and author bias reduces the efficacy of importing that message to the current age. (especially from Paul who was a zealot from the start).

I actually chose not to focus on contextual analysis, but it is a good point. IF the passage DOES refer to homosexuality, then there is absolutely no reason it should apply to modern life. Paul also promotes slavery and, as you said, the repression of women, but neither of those commands are generally accepted today because 'times have changed'. People pick and choose.

[b.k. barunt]

If the Bible is subject to change with the age, than it is not timeless, as it would be if written by God. God is eternal (timeless - no beginning or end) if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is timeless, and your argument is meaningless. If it is, as you say "open to interpretation", then you can make it say whatever you want, and any discussion will be subjective to the point of absurdity. Either take it for what it says, or dismiss it - anything else is bullshit. A good case in point is Guiscard's long, rambling, esoteric non-answer to my question. Does the irony escape you? I ask how the passage was vague, and the answer i got was a classice excercise in vagueness, with a change of subject at the end as an answer.

[Guiscard]

If the Bible is subject to change with the age, than it is not timeless, as it would be if written by God. God is eternal (timeless - no beginning or end) if the Bible is the Word of God, then it is timeless, and your argument is meaningless. If it is, as you say "open to interpretation", then you can make it say whatever you want, and any discussion will be subjective to the point of absurdity. Either take it for what it says, or dismiss it - anything else is bullshit. A good case in point is Guiscard's long, rambling, esoteric non-answer to my question. Does the irony escape you? I ask how the passage was vague, and the answer i got was a classice excercise in vagueness, with a change of subject at the end as an answer.

I disagree. My post was in no way vague. I described various ways in which the passage can be wasily interpreted to not refer to a complete comdemnation of homosexuality, and stated that it does not simpy say 'homosexuality is a sin'. It is a vague passage because of the many interpretations that can be applied, and because the original greek terms can be translated to refer to child sex not homosexuality. It is vague.

There is no biblical passage that condemns homosexuality outright in undebatable terms. I'm wouldn't debate, for example, the commandment to not murder becuase the hebrew words originally used can be translated directly. It is not arguable in the same way as the terms used for homosexuality are. They are vague.

[CrazyAnglican]

The ArchBishop of Cantebury (head of the Anglican Chuch) explains it thus: "Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

I seem to think this might have been directed at me. It’s a really good thing that us Christians have to swallow everything our church fathers tell us. Won’t think for ourselves, ya know. I’m not that kind of Christian (actually never even met one, but a lot of atheists have assured me they exist). A lot of us are actually quite ready to critically examine scripture. That’s really the whole point in reading it.

It seems, by contrast, that you put a lot of stock in Dr. Boswell. Now, his work has been around for about thirty years, and it has been debated. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/greek/boswell.html.
There is a particularly good part of this paper in which Mr. Carlson points out that Dr. Boswell ignores contextual usage (you can try this; plug in “soft cloth” and “male prostitute” to see if they make more sense than homosexual in the context), that the author used the word at other times (if it all seems to point to one translation that’s probably the right one), and others. I recommend this article; it takes a little patience, but explains things pretty clearly. According to Carlson, Boswell ignores reliable ways to find a word’s meaning, choosing to focus on etymology (an account of the history of a particular word or element of a word.) a terribly unreliable way to find a word’s meaning, and the fact that the greater Hellenistic communities did not use this “Koine” (a dialect used by Hellenized Jews and Christians) word at all. But my simplified version is this. We have a perfectly good English word: homosexual, but we also have euphemisms in which it is entirely clear what we mean. Do we always use homosexual? No. Is there any reason to think that St. Paul was that different from us in the use of euphimisms or even coined his own word? No.

You can, of course, try to write this off as your opposition “arguing from faith”. As If no serious academic could possibly embrace Christianity, and no atheist could possibly have an agenda that blinds him to facts, but I’d like remind you that I haven’t asked anyone to take anything on faith, you, however, have.

but as a point of faith will you not take my word for it and believe that I have studied this in depth at degree level under professors who are experts in ecclesiastical history?.

to base centuries of persecution on interpretation is unforgivablle

It seems our “pointless” discussion had a point after all. You have repeatedly refused to show that scripture was intentionally tampered with. Instead trying very hard to attribute the worst motives to Christians; bringing us to this indictment. Never mind that Christians, on this site, unanimously decried the “God Hates Fags” idiots. You of course are overlooking one indisputable fact of the scripture. The Old testament says that it is unlawful and provides punishment for it, yes, among many other things. The New Testament never says to persecute homosexuals. You even mention that the persecution you speak of didn’t happen on a “massive scale”. Yet, feel perfectly justified in defaming an entire religion based on this. I humbly suggest that you may have a prejudicial outlook in this regard.

[luns101]

An Example

"A man does not lay next to another man as he does a women"

sounds like if the parts dont fit you need to improvise....

ofcourse this can also mean lets burn faggots at the stake...

Please show me where the Bible teaches for us to burn faggots at the stake. That sounds like a wild exaggeration to me...perhaps with the intent of labeling Christians as intolerant.

[unriggable]

An Example

"A man does not lay next to another man as he does a women"

sounds like if the parts dont fit you need to improvise....

ofcourse this can also mean lets burn faggots at the stake...

Please show me where the Bible teaches for us to burn faggots at the stake. That sounds like a wild exaggeration to me...perhaps with the intent of labeling Christians as intolerant.

I dunno, its just that some people make big deals out of the smallest of differences (like race and sexual orientation), and some xians find passages in the bible that allow them to act upon those differences.

[luns101]

Please show me where the Bible teaches for us to burn faggots at the stake. That sounds like a wild exaggeration to me...perhaps with the intent of labeling Christians as intolerant.

I dunno, its just that some people make big deals out of the smallest of differences (like race and sexual orientation), and some xians find passages in the bible that allow them to act upon those differences.

Yeah, some people do falsely act on bad interpretation. The best example I can think of in the U.S. is when Christians tried to use passages to justify the intolerable system of slavery.

This raises a point which I'd like you to think about, UR. It sounds to me like others here (perhaps you as well) are making the case that Christians are seeking out passages which fit what they want to believe in order to practice discriminatory acts against others.

I would submit that it's not like that. Christians read the Bible and decide to believe it for what it claims. These same Christians believe and proclaim those passages to the rest of the world at their own peril. They are even warned that most of the world will reject the message found in the Bible, and that they will be ridiculed or perhaps even lose their lives over it. What a sales pitch!

I would love to avoid confrontation with others so that I can "fit in with the crowd" and not offend anyone. However, I can't simply ignore what the Bible teaches about controversial subjects for convenience sake. The Bible is what it is...it says what it says, and it makes no apologies for it's statments. You and I have to decide whether or not to agree with it.

[Anarchist]

Luns, there are many people who would love to "burn faggots at the stake" before you deny that christians would do such a thing take a look at history... Now i never said that the bible demands that christians be burned. Jesus was a message of love, the church carries messages dipped in hate.(this doesnt apply to all, but those that ruin any chance of christians having a good name-Muslims have the same problem)

This raises a point which I'd like you to think about, UR. It sounds to me like others here (perhaps you as well) are making the case that Christians are seeking out passages which fit what they want to believe in order to practice discriminatory acts against others.

Yeah, thats what i believe they are doing. The words of jesus have been twisted in order to better serve the church and its followers.

I would submit that it's not like that. Christians read the Bible and decide to believe it for what it claims. These same Christians believe and proclaim those passages to the rest of the world at their own peril. They are even warned that most of the world will reject the message found in the Bible, and that they will be ridiculed or perhaps even lose their lives over it. What a sales pitch!

True, but then they waste time arguing and fighting over what it says, there are too many branches of the church to claim that the message isnt vague, either that or the book is altered?
(bold) last i checked the two largest religions are Christian and Muslim. Seems that most of the world has accepted the church.Perhaps those who have rejected the "message" are the ones who have accepted the religion but refuse to accept christ?Whether through manipulation or misinterpretation, the loudest of christians have lost Jesus's message.

I would love to avoid confrontation with others so that I can "fit in with the crowd" and not offend anyone. However, I can't simply ignore what the Bible teaches about controversial subjects for convenience sake. The Bible is what it is...it says what it says, and it makes no apologies for it's statments. You and I have to decide whether or not to agree with it.

Fair enough, i do not agree with it. Now can you please tell all the racists they arent needed anymore? that the protests at funerals have been heard and ignored? That even though the druids are dead the religion remains, can you all please leave me alone? Nope, christians still knocking on my door. Selling God...

Not saying your one of those christians, but you cant deny that what your fellow christians do is wrong. (KKK,etc.. etc...)
unless of course you believe they are right?