Initially, I must admit, I was tempted to respond directly to Bubba's thread, but this isn't even about Mosaic Law anymore. What it ultimately comes down to is philosophical difference regarding the nature of God and the nature of the Bible. In an ideal world, indeed, there would be this uniformity, but Christianity is a diverse religion. Indeed, it is certainly deceptive on the part of Calvinist Protestantism, whose members cleverly refuse to acknowledge that they are members of a sect, instead blandly calling themselves "Christians," implying that they are representing the whole of Christianity. I have never once shyed away from letting you know that many of my beliefs rest somewhat in Catholic philosophy...but do we even know what Bubba's specific denomination is? All signs point to a form of non-denominational Calvinist fundamentalism, needless to say, which is why we are inevitably *never* going to agree. Allow me to elaborate on my religious background in the spirit of understanding.
My beliefs on the nature of the Bible were not invented by me, but is a direct reflection of Roman Catholic teaching on the Bible. In the 1930s, way before the liberalization of Vatican II, Pope Pius XII (?) released an encyclical encouraging scholarly and scientific research of the original texts of the Bible, which was reminiscent of the beliefs of medieval Christian philosopher, St. Thomas Aquinas, who believed that the nature of God was revealed in science. To the credit of the Catholic Church of the time, they knew their history and knew that there were many vastly different translations of the Bible over the millennia. The mindset, of course, was in revealing the original words and translate them closely to their original meaning, we would discover the original word of God. This is why I often reduce Biblical passages to their original language, because there are often many awkward phrases (what is "unlawful marriage" supposed to mean?) that are easily twisted to any kind of devious mindset as translated.
What is commonly thrown at me is that the Bible is not in contradiction; that, in fact, it all flows together and proves it is the "true word of God." That, in itself, is an example of willful blindness and is blatantly ignorant of even simple history. The New Testament is in implicit conflict with itself only because the Christian Church was borne of division between the Church of Jerusalem, led by St. Peter and St. James, which believed that all Christians must also follow Jewish laws and customs, and the Church of Antioch, led by St. Paul, which believed that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had freed us from Jewish laws and customs. As the New Testament is a mixture of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian texts, to cross-quote these books is sloppy at best.
To complicate this, the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, is an example of a Jewish Christian sect in direct conflict against an invading Gentile Christian sect.
Matthew 5:17 -- "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."
Matthew 7:12 -- "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets."
Don't think too hard about these statements, because it is true: they do directly conflict with each other. A textual analysis of the original writing style shows Gentile Christian edits and additions to the original Jewish Christian text of the Gospel of Matthew.
You supposedly quote from James...but where is it? It isn't in the epistle at all. And I have a feeling that I already talked about that mirror passage in Acts. Please read it, because I'm tired of repeating myself to you. Why don't you quote this little passage from James?
James 2:19-24: "You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Here's another nice little contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism: justification through faith alone or faith and good works. James here certainly proves that the Protestant belief is wrong, so why don't you follow this? But that's right. St. Paul directly contradicts that, saying that salvation is all on faith. Note: an obvious conflict between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity.
The beliefs of St. Paul and his Church of Antioch won out; by the time Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in A.D. 313 and made it the state religion of the Roman Empire, the Jewish Christian Church of Jerusalem was long extinct. In formulating the New Testament canon and in debate of the Old Testament, the Jewish Christian texts were kept out of reference and completeness. The same holds true for the Old Testament--kept solely for reference, as the New Testament was written with Old Testament references. In no way or capacity did the creators of the New Testament canon ever wish for these texts to be taken so seriously. To them, the Church was the possessor of truth, passed on in inheritance from the theological beliefs of the Church of Antioch. The Gnostics, who were the first Biblical fundamentalists, were destroyed as heretics, done at the hands of the same church that created the New Testament canon. Yes, these historical facts may trouble you, but it is not my job to romanticize history. It is our task to learn from it. Protestantism, while admirable for challenging the autocratic imperialism of the medieval / Renaissance Catholic Church, was heavily guilty of romanticism, giving unwarranted deification to the Bible, some going as far as to ignore the fact that the New Testament was formed in a canon by men and stating that the Bible was written directly by God.
I must actually say that I agree with the spirit of conservative FOX News commentator, Bill O'Reilly, in his comment in protest of UNC's teaching of Islam to UNC freshman, stating that, while Islam is a peaceful religion, one must also teach the basis of fanaticism and terrorism--basically advocating a balanced, non-PC discussion of Islam. On the same vein, we must stop this unrealistic assumption that all of the Bible and Christianity is about "peace," when it is blatantly clear that an extreme-right interpretation of the Bible can easily lead to the same fanaticism of many Islamic terrorist movements. All we have to do is look back on history, which too many Christians try and willfully ignore. The Taliban had burqas, while Victorian England had corsets. Same purpose, different coverage. However, there seem to be too many threatened by such a thought, who would rather create an unrealistic history of Christianity than a truthful one, out of fear of losing converts. Lying is certainly not a Biblical value, now is it?
Regardless of this, my beliefs on the Bible are actually very much in keeping with the nature of Catholicism. In fact, dare I say, the amount of store I put into the Bible is far more conservative than Catholicism. To make reference to the original topic on the morality of homosexuality, not only does the Vatican grudgingly agree that the Bible is mistranslated in regards to the anti-homosexual passages (but refuses to change the Bible to reflect corrected translations solely out of stubbornness and to keep its followers in blind support of its anti-gay teachings), the Catholic Church doesn't even condemn it on a Biblical basis. It condemns it solely on maligned stoic tradition that all sexual acts must result in the possibility of procreation. Hence the Catholic Church's condemnation of all forms of birth control from condoms to birth control pills, condemnation of masturbation, condemnation of oral sex, etc. This being the same stoic tradition that effectively banned feeling pleasure from sex for well over 1000 years and told you that the "rhythm method" to consciously avoid having children was a mortal sin. Forget the issues of love; they don't care. It all comes down to reducing sex to its most banal and animal nature: to make offspring. Many Protestant sects disagree with this notion, but condemn homosexuality on a Biblical basis. I guess you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?
So, no, this isn't willful blindness. I cannot help it if we come from different ends of the Christian spectrum.
-- "The fallen nature of man" is different than the actual theological concept of "original sin"--that is what I was talking about. I implore that you study the differences.
-- "The cult of marriage," if you would have comprehended what I wrote, was in reference to the Catholic Church making marriage a sacrament in A.D. 1100-1200, which is different to earlier concepts of marriage. That does *not* mean that marriage did not exist before then. I implore you to reread what I wrote.
In addition, I am also requesting the closing of this thread, out of the sheer fact that I find it blatantly insulting and filled with unintentional archetypes. Call it a selfish request if you'd like, but I certainly don't think that a thread supporting slavery or the repeal of women's rights on the basis of the Bible--which can easily be done--would nearly have lasted this long still open. Why it is still vogue to openly insult homosexuals--calling them mentally "defective," equating their pursuit of equal rights to "legitimizing orgies"--is beyond me, but I will no longer be party to it. I flat out HATE these threads, but I am always compelled to respond to them, because otherwise misconceptions are perpetrated further. Rest assured for those who love these threads, I'm sure someone else will create another one of these in due time. In the meantime, anyone with honest inquiry on my beliefs can PM me, and I will be happy to respond earnestly.
Melon
Couldn't agree more with your post, martha 
