DavidJS,

I have no idea how you gained the impression the Bible wasn’t for male female sexual relationship within the bounds of marriage and against all forms of promiscuity (and adultery) whether between homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Do you really want me to take you through the Bible on this as well as 2,000 years of how the Church has understood these texts?

When you say you would be concerned about a doctor using a 2,000 year old guide, what are you talking about? If you mean the treatment of myelofibrosis, a condition I have - of course not! But if you are talking about the more important issues, such as about the way to conduct my relationships with others, I’ll go to the Bible and the tradition of the Church based on that Bible every time, thank you very much.

Re the longevity of marriages, of course I understand about divorce, but surely you recognise the distinction between the ideal “until death do us part” and the reality which can include failure! Thankfully even in these depressing times for western culture, 2/3rds of marriages do survive “until death do us part”.

You are more optimistic on the non appearance of alternative forms of association for marriage – let’s wait and see.

I suppose Ron with his Dear Dr Laura letter ejoyed a chuckle and thought he’d scored a hit. Ringtail certainly did.

For this Christian, he looked foolish. For 2,000 years Christians have recognised texts like Lev 1:9, etc belong to the old Jewish covenantal laws, now superseded with the coming of Christ. Gosh, how many of us have sold our daughters into slavery, and as far as the women with their monthly menstrual uncleanliness – you would know Ron, wouldn’t you, because according to that same Bible, you'ld be her husband!

Amazing when you look at it, how foolish the Ron’s list looks – bit a laff really.

And that bit about the old Jewish laws being superseded with the coming of Christ - see how Christ deals with all this old Jewish legalism in Matthew 15:1-20 – go on, look it up and think about it!

What distinguishes homosexuality from the other items on Ron’s list is that unlike menstrual uncleanliness, etc, etc, the prohibition of homosexuality is taken over from the Old Testament, bit like the 10 Commandments, and reinforced in the New Testament.

If you want to argue against the Christian position, at least make some attempt to understand what it might be.

And come on, give Tony a break. He’s done enough mea culpa’s on that one. And technically you haven’t got it right anyway, he acted promiscuously, not adulterously

Unfortunately, Biblical cherry picking is a major growth industry and David, your last post reveals you as a classic case of someone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible are important, which parts are not, and which parts have been "superceded". This is part of the reason why many people can't take the likes of Fred Nile seriously. He's regarded as a hypocritical time server who selectively uses the Bible for his own ends. Do you really want to be like that?

DavidJS says:

"Unfortunately, Biblical cherry picking is a major growth industry and David, your last post reveals you as a classic case of someone who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible are important, which parts are not, and which parts have been "superceded". This is part of the reason why many people can't take the likes of Fred Nile seriously. He's regarded as a hypocritical time server who selectively uses the Bible for his own ends. Do you really want to be like that?"

No, this is where you are wrong. You are flying a large kite and the string has broken. In contrast I have 2,000 years reflection by Christians behind me.

As I said in my last post, if you want to argue against the Christian position, at least make some attempt to understand what it might be.

But I can see that you are not interested, though you are quite happy to trample over it, without any comprehension and looking somewhat foolish as well. But then if you were convinced of the truth and applicability of the Christian position, then indeed you would have a problem, but also the solution too.

David, I was brought up on bible studies and raised as a christian. At age 12 I began to question the logic and rationale behind these stories - there were too many inconsistencies. No doubt Ron and DavidJS are equally well informed. The problem is this: the bible is a collection of stories written by a variety of men with a variety of agendas many centuries ago concerning tales alleged to have occurred even further back in the past.

While I freely acknowledge there are some philosophical gems in the bible the same can be said of many ancient texts. The stories are about the times in which they were written and their relevancy today is questionable if not completely at odds with comtemporary knowledge and culture. To base arguments on selections of the bible is the same as me quoting from the Iliad to prove a point.

Dear Ringtail, thank you for your kindly post.

I don't think Ron and DavidJS are at all well informed as to the structure, contents and theology of the Bible. And I really think you have far too pessimistic a view of the Bible. I think it has stood up remarkably well - it is certainly spot on as far as the human condition is concerned.

I see the homosexual lifestyle as extremely destructive and sad. But having said all that, I think it is time to leave this issue.