It really isn’t that easy, Jamie.
Christianity, especially Catholicism, always moves slowly, and does so on purpose. This is because before they change a teaching on an issue, they want to make sure that their actions will not have adverse effects in the long term. Just like how Martin Luther wasn’t patient enough to wait for the Council of Trent, what you’re asking betrays the inherent impatience within much of our society; it’s either change now or else.

If there is to be a practical solution to this dilemma, it should be to remove the ability of religious institutions to certify the civil half of a marriage. Thus, if and when gay marriage is ratified, religious organizations are not bound to certify the civil half and are only responsible to certify the religious half of marriages to who they see fit.

#1 Peter,

Atheists have been getting married down at city hall for decades, without asking for or getting a religious marriage. So I think that goes to show that religious institutions have never been “certifying” the civil half of marriage. Because it is very common for couples to choose to also have a religious ceremony when they get a marriage certificate from the government, a lot of people think that the two are somehow inextricably linked. But in fact they are not and never have been.

The letter writers betrays their true motives and opinions. They dislike organized religion because of the tenants of the faith and because of that belief they want the faiths punished. Witness her line about the “founding documents” of the faith written by “predjudiced men”. If you truly belief a faith, these “documents” are supposed to be divinely inspired. What we seem to have here is a wolf in sheeps clothing. An atheiest that wants to punish organized faiths for their “evil tyranny” by espousing only a portion of the faith while demonizing the rest.

Just say I don’t like Catholics already, don’t lie and be all cute about it.

Jamie writes: “the attitude toward homosexual marriage reveals a similarly cruel lack of charity. It flies in the face of Christianity’s founding spirit. The sooner we stop our hard hearts and hard heads from blindly worshipping our religion’s founding documents, the sooner we can recover our Christian faith’s humane and loving center.”

Most Christians worldwide and down through the centuries would disagree with “blindly worshipping our religion’s founding documents….” We worship Jesus Christ and accept God’s inspired revelation as to faith and practice. In the Old Testament homosexual acts are included with inces and bestiality, both of which are practiced by some people today. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul and especially the epistle writer Jude hone in on homosexual acts as perverted and against God’s holy law.

As far as most of us are concerned, heterosexual fornication and adultery are still wrong, and we believe that not because we worship some documents, but because our Lord never abrogated them as he never abrogated incest, bestiality, or homosexual acts.

Why not recognize Christianity includes not just faith, but also practice, as do most religions. Love comes in and tells any guilty of sin there is forgiveness with God through confession and repentance.

#4,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other specific Biblical laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. If I come into contact with a woman who is menstruating and she doesn’t tell me until afterwards, must I kill her immediately or can I just beat her?

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Also, is Sabbath on Saturday as Seventh Day Adventists (Christians, like us…or are they?) or is it on Sunday as Baptists and some other faiths agree? I am beset by not knowing who to kill and when to kill them…please clarify this for me.

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality (Lev. 18:22). I don’t agree. I’m also confused about how homosexuality can be an abomination when Jonathan and David were married in the Bible (1 Samuel 18:1, 3 - 4). Here, I’ll quote it - “And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword and to his bow and to his girdle.” and also Ruth’s relationship with Naomi is suspect, (Ruth 1:16-17) “And Ruth said to Naomi, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part three and me.” Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27 and even though 1st Cor. 11:4-6 says that it is a shame upon a man to have long hair. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? Also, since it is strictly forbidden to “eat neither fat nor blood” in Lev. 3:17 & Lev. 19:26, does that mean that I must be a vegetarian and must I smite those who choose to eat meat?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

k) I know that it is an abomination for a man to wear a woman’s clothes or a woman to wear a man’s (Deut. 22:5), so does that mean that since my wife borrowed my boxers once, she’s going to hell?

l) An unbeliever sent me an email telling me that God is an ABORTIONIST? It says, “In Num. 5:11-31, God commands a husband to get an abortion for his wife if he suspects she has been impregnated by another man. A priest is to make her drink a potion and tell her, “If any man other than your husband has had intercourse with you, may the LORD make an example of you . . . by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth.” To deliberately cause a miscarriage is to perform an abortion. And who brings about this miscarriage? Who performs this abortion? It is the LORD who does so. God is an abortionist. In Ex. 21:22-25, God tells us what to do if a man who is fighting knocks against a pregnant woman. If the woman dies, the principle of “life for life” is invoked and the man responsible for her death must be killed. If she lives but has a miscarriage, then the death of the fetus is to be compensated for by the payment of a fine, as demanded by the woman’s husband. Thus, God has revealed the status of the unborn fetus: it is not an independent, full-fledged human life, whose destruction amounts to murder. It is a thing owned by the woman’s husband, a thing whose loss, like that of any other thing, may be compensated for with money.” How can this be true?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging and also for the reassurance that the Bible is infallible.

sej, your questions should be directed to a rabbi since they all have to do with the Old Testament.

I’m a New Testament Christian, not an Old Testament Jew.

sej, your questions should be directed to a rabbi since they all relate to the Old Testament.

I am a New Testament Christian, not an Old Testament Jew.

#6 and #7,

So I guess you pay no attention to Genesis where it talks about how God created the universe? Or the 10 Commandments in Exodus?

Christ did not abrogate the creation story or the ten commandments. He did abrogate the ceremonial law. Acts and the epistles were a further affirmation of what is required of Christians that is either like that of the Jews and that which differs. Sounds like you don’t really understand the tenets of Christianity.

Also, for most Christians it is believed God’s plan of redemption was progressive

#9,

So you say God abrogated the ceremonial law? Well, he certainly made statements in the New Testament that are at odds with what one can find in the Old Testament. But I don’t know that one can say that that somehow abrogrates the same issue in the Old Testament. That is a matter of interpretation. And this gets to what many of us have been saying for so long: if you have 100 people study the Bible, you will get 100 different interpretations of it. That is why it is so dangerous to start interpreting sections literally, like so many people do.

I agree that God’s plan of redemption was progressive. But again, that’s a matter of interpretation for each person out there to decide on their own.