Leauki...you made all these comments:











and you are absolutely correct in your understanding of the OT here. All of this is quite true.

[quote]Actually, it forbids just adultery; and for women only. Men could not commit adultery since they could marry (have) as many women as they wanted. [quote]

Now this I do have issue with. Where are you getting this and what law are you speaking of? This is not true. Rememember David? He committed adultery with Bathsheba and paid a hefty price for it. While Abraham's affair with Hagar isn't called adultery but just a concubine arrangement I do not think this pleased God. Are you famiiar with the first polygamist in scripture? Who started this ball rolling? What the culture did and what the bible recorded doesn't always mean it's correct. God was not happy with plural marriages and allowed it (permissive will not pefect will for man) but it wasn't in his plan from the beginning.



True and one only needs a quick glimpse of OT scripture to read of the many wars sanctioned by God against evil. So the question is are we to stop now? Is evil gone? Is there anything new with man here? I don't think so. To carry this over to the NT Paul wrote this to the Romans:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities for there is no authority except that which God has estabished. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong be afraid for he does not bear the sword for nothing." 13:1-4

This is backed up by the OT. In Proverbs 21:1 we read:

"The King's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of wter; he turns it withersoever he will."

Basically all this means is God is in control and there is a master plan behind all we see. The kings are where they are past, present and future because God is allowing them to be there. In the OT we read about such rulers as Nebuchadnesser, Cyrus and Artaxerxes. These rulers are examples of authority whom God used as water either to flood or fertilize Israel.

What does the Bible say about manslaughter? If your in the process of stoning someone for a stonable offense and you accidentally take out a innocent little girl walking by, is that not a sin? Does the Bible allow for collateral damage?

Have you ever heard about the cities of refuge in the OT? You'd find this in Numbers 35.

God provided six cities of refuge in which those guilty of accidental homicide might seek refuge from the avenger (nearest relative) until they could be tried. If you look at v16-24 you'd see how scripture differentiates between deliberate and accidental homicide (murder and manslaugher). Also you'd see the criteria for judging various types of cases. If a verdict was manslaugher the slayer could live as long as he stayed within a city of refuge until the death of the high priest, after that he could safely retun home. More than one witness to a murder was required.

No ransom was permitted so that the life of a murderer could be spared or so that the one guilty of manslaugher could return home because killing polluted the land.

I remember one avenger in scripture tricked a man to come outside the city of refuge and he killed him outside the gate. I think during the days of David. I can't remember off hand who this is without searching, but the whole parallel has to do with Christ. Christ is our refuge and when we're found outside of Christ, Satan can take us out easily because we are unprotected.

Lula is NOT a "Catholic" in the normal sense. I know Catholics and Catholicism, I live in a majority Catholic country,

The Catholic church accepts the theory of evolution and forbids anti-Semitism and lying about the Talmud. Lula denies evolution (in spite of the fact that the Pope does not!) and refuses to let go of old conspiracy theories regarding the Talmud (despite the fact that the official position of the Church is that it was wrong to believe such conspiracy theories).

While KFC might be representative of certain protestant churches, Lula is certainly not representative of Catholicism (whatever the value of that).

Abraham didn't have an affair with Hagar. Taking another wife when a first wife couldn't bear children was common practice in Semitic cultures (and perfectly legal according to Jewish law later). Sarai permitted Abraham to take Hagar.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba, but not because he was married, but because she was. Legally SHE committed adultery, while HE coveted his neighbour's wife. Both violated laws, but not the same law.

If Bathsheba hadn't been married, no law would have been broken; hence David's attempt to cover up the event involving only Bathsheba and here husband and not him (because he had to do nothing to undo the crime as it did not involve his person, only his actions).

I guess G-d's real problem with the entire story was David's attempt to cover it up by killing (letting die) Bathsheba's husband.

As for G-d and Abraham, G-d was not displeased with Abraham and Hagar and decided to make both Sarai's and Hagar's offspring into great nations.




I don't know. Ask a rabbi.

Generally, stoning anybody for anything is forbidden by Jewish law (even though it was legal a few thousand years ago). Accidental deaths probably warrant compensation for the relatives of the accidentally killed.

Anyway, that's a legal decision I am obviously not qualified to make.

Well collateral damage is much worse than accidental homicide, if it’s not murder it’s very close. If you know that your actions will kill innocents then that constitutes premeditation, it’s just devoid of malice.

In biblical times wars were fought by two apposing armies while the women and children waited at a safe distance for the outcome. Of course there could always be some religious justification for the slaughter of all the losers without it being a sin.

Modern warfare however just accepts that innocents will be killed. The Muslims get around this but just proclaiming that there are no innocents and that free’s them from the burden of even trying to protect innocent life while the Christians justify it by at least giving some level of consideration to this in their tactics.

What I'm saying KFC is if you support modern warfare tactics your legislating sin.

Yes, agree it was according to culture. But that was NOT God's wishes. You didn't answer the questions Leauki. Where did this first originate (taking more than one wife) and where are you getting the fact that God is ok with this?

Other than that first instance of polygamy there is no recorded instances that exist from Shem to Terah (Abraham's father). No permission can be recited from the scriptures for any such institution or practice. To support it one could apeal only to the illustrations in the lives of a rather select number of persons not to scripture itself. The 10 commandments were written to both men and women. The Bible never condones their polygamy nor does it make it normative. From the beginning of time up to 931 BC under Solomon there are only 15 examples of polygamy in the OT. Moses only had one wife. Noah had only one wife. His son's had one wife. Job only had one wife. Adam only had one wife. etc.

Those involved in polygamy (including Abraham and David) had sown to the wind and did reap the whirlwind. God never changed his mind about the appropriatness of one wife and for one husband to become one flesh. This is man's doing, not God's.



This is true. God, at times, takes our wrongs and makes the best of them (Rom 8:28) but God had other plans for Abraham. Issac would be the son of promise even tho Ishmael was the first child born to Abraham showing that God didn't recognize Ishamael as first born. And because of what Abraham did (going outside God's will for him) we've had war between Abraham's seed ever since.



So men can't commit adultery only woman according to you? I think it's significant that Jesus did't speak of someone's wife but of a "woman" in general when he said:

"You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say to you, that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:27

He also said: "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery"
19:9

Jesus made it clear that men do and can commit adultery.

because of the innocents who die during warfare? Heartbreaking and unfortunate but it does happen and it's not legislating sin. Our country quite often warn before they strike so those innocents will have time to leave. Remember Saddam who would surround himself with children? He knew what he was doing. Many fight dirty by placing woman and children in the way as Saddam did while they create chaos and spread evil to their own people. So are we to sit back and try to fight around them? It's not possible try as we might it just isn't sometimes. My dad who is a great war and history buff has alot to say about this. He cites those wars which were most successful to bring in peace and that sent a powerful message. Yes, innocents do die but by going in, it stops much more death than it would had we not gone in. Now I'm not talking those who deliberately target woman and children out of malice. That's another matter.

Going to war is not legislating sin. It's for the good of society to stop the evil from spreading. To not go to war (scripture has examples of this) when war is necessary leaves evil unchecked and spreading. Many bad and wicked things happened when God's full directives were not carried out to the letter and by letting some live. In fact in one instance almost the whole line of the Kingly tribe of Judah (Christ's line) was entirely wiped out(but for one baby) as a reusult of Israel's reluctance in not killing all the enemies in war many years before.

I believe that not one hair will be damaged if God didn't allow it to happen. I believe I am invinceable until God takes me out regardless of the method. That's why we see so many that should have died instead lived and were able to tell about it.

Going back to Romans 13 we see that government does have the right to wield the sword when and if necessary with God's blessing.

 

Interesting that this should come up now.  The Torah portion for this week is Matot, Numbers 30:2−32:42.  Moses commands the slaying of Midianites and is upset that the Israelites didn't kill them all.

I've read a few commentaries on this and it seems modern sensibilities struggle with a religiously commanded war. I struggle with war period. If we are to progress as a people we must seek alternatives to killing. As I've said before, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

See ya.

 

"How can you be so aware of the dangers of rewriting the Bible and then do it anyway and openly?"


I didn't rewrite it. I quoted it exactly as it was written in the bible that I have. If I write something with quotation marks and state that it is from the bible it is a quote of the exact text as it is written. If you have a different bible, that's fine, I don't. I'm not so sure that the newer translations are closer to the original. Are you?

"If you want to quote the Bible, go ahead; but don't claim that your preferred translation is the "old" Bible while other translations (and the original text in Hebrew) are the "new" Bible."

I've never read the torah so I wouldn't know, but I do know that killing is wrong no matter the reasons given for doing so. And it is obviously an older bible since it does say "Thou shalt not kill", as versus a newer translation that says thou shalt not murder. You are assuming that I mean better more correct instead of simply being an older printing. I didn't say that it was my prefered translation, but from what I know from personal experience it is absolutely correct. And that doesn't come from simply reading the bible either.

I said that I was aware that newer, as in printed later, say something different. However this is the one I own, and it is the one I use. I have no intentions of buying another either.

No, you may not assume that I've never read the bible. I have. I have quoted nothing out of text. The words are quite clear. You assume that because in Exodus that there is a written penalty for these things that you as a human are allowed to carry them out. You aren't. They were written to let one know what actions God will take in retribution for breaking the law. They are about karma, not about our right to judge. The bible does not contradict itself. It's only humankinds interpretation of it that does the contradiction.

Further more I don't expect to be helpful. Nor do I desire or wish anyone to believe me, nor do I care if they do or not. Belief as I said before is NOT KNOWLEDGE, it is belief. I don't care about beliefs, I am only interested in knowledge, and what I know is available to anyone who wishes to find out for themselves. And I'm not talking about reading books or taking anothers word, including mine, for it either. The only knowledge that we ever truly posess is our own experiences, anything other than that is blind belief or faith.

Almost all wars are started out of self importance. If God commands that one slay another then it is not a sin. Even if one doesn't understand the reason for it. If one kills another to save their own life, or in vengenance for a perceived wrong it is a breaking of the law. God does not often command this of anyone. And certainly he did not command the US for doing it. KFC just stated that rulers are Gods representatives and one must obey them because they are. Why does that not also apply to Saddam? He wouldn't be in power if God had not decided that he should be according to what you are saying. Or does that strictly apply to what you or the government of the US decide is right and wrong? I'm thinking that one can't have it both ways according to what is beneficial to you or the government.

"because of the innocents who die during warfare? Heartbreaking and unfortunate but it does happen and it's not legislating sin."

It's not? Why are the innocents less than anyone else, or less than the innocents that are killed when they are aborted as fetuses? Isn't that also heartbreaking and unfortunate? Why do they deserve more than those who already exist and are killed during a war?

Some apply to men, some apply to women, most apply to both. Do you think the one about not coveting your neighbour's wife was directed at women?

The concept of adultery committed by men simply didn't exist back then.




But there hasn't been.

It's important to realise that there hasn't been a war between Jews and Arabised Arabs (Ishmaelis) ever since. The war started in the late 19th century when modern nationalism reached the middle east and transformed a tolerant Muslim society into a dangerous pan-Arab national-socialist empire. (It's the same force that transformed Europe's land of thinkers and poets into Nazi Germany.)

The first we hear about Ishmael's offspring, the nation G-d made out of him, since Abraham's death is what Muhammed told. Muhammed's tribe was, so they claim, the descendants of Ishmael's. And Muhammed thought he was a prophet (or was a prophet sent to the Arab peoples, it doesn't matter, since what he taught was based on the Bible anyway).

And here's what Muhammed and his followers did and said with regard to Isaac's offspring, the people you think he was in a war with:

1. Muhammed confirmed, in the Quran (a word that means "recitation" or "reading" and refers to the fact that Muhammed's prophecy was a reading of earlier scripture, i.e. the Bible INCLUDING "New Testamant") that G-d sent Moses to the Children of Israel.

2. Muhammed confirmed that G-d, via Moses, liberated the Children of Israel in Egypt and led them to their promised land.

3. Muhammed confirmed that the Children of Israel received the promised land from G-d and had a right to live there.

4. Muhammed founded the first Islamic state in Medina with a constitution that regarded the religion of his followers and Judaism as equal and the two peoples, Jews and Muslims (i.e. those Arabs and Jews that believed in his prophethood) as allies against Arab pagans.

5. The caliph Umar, when he took Jerusalem (from Persian rule), went to the temple mount and built a mosque there.

6. Umar also called on the Jews in the world to return, claiming that their "exile is over".

7. Under Muslim rule Jews were not usually persecuted (until the fall of traditional Islam and the rise of Arab nationalism), as opposed to their status in "Christian" states and empires.

8. Later Muslim rulers gave refuge to Jews who fled "Christian" territories. The Turkish emperor even sent a fleet in 1500 to collect the Jews of Spain whom the "Christian" rulers exelled (and before that persecuted and tortured). The Spanish Jews (Sephardim) have had a stronghold in Turkey (in Istanbul and Thesaloniki) ever since. (Morocco also granted refuge to Spanish Jews. Even today a representative of the Jewish community is part of the government, and yes, they can emigrate to Israel or visit Morocco from Israel.)

9. The Hashemite family, descendants of Muhammed's uncle, rulers of Iraq (until the 1950s) and Jordan, made a deal with the Zionists that was supposed to (until the Nasserists and other Arab and Syrian nationalists started the attacks) create an Arab empire with a Jewish state as a connection to the western world.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement

Note that King Faisal, Ishmael's descendant, didn't think of Palestinian Arabs as Arabs and held them in much disdain. Faisal saw his Arab tribe and the Jews as the one side and Palestinian "Arabs" as the others. Note that Israel and Ishmael stood together against the others until the others became too strong (not without German help). Then, and only then, did the descendants of Ishmael join the other Arabs against the Jews. But that was in 1948.

There is no traditional "war" between the children of Jacob and the children of Ishmael.

However, there has been a traditional war between Christianity and Jews, with Christianity trying to murder and torture (and forcibly convert) Jews that only ended a few hundred years ago (in Ireland the earliest within the British Empire, and in Germany and Poland the earliest within the entire Christian world).

That is not your Christianity, KFC, but it was the face of Christianity for over a thousand years. Your form of protestantism "protests" exactly that feature of nominal Christianity. You explained that to me in the PM, remember?

Abraham did nothing wrong and there is no war between his two sons and their respective nations.

Ishmael's descendants were to assume the role of protectors of his younger brother's descendants. And despite minor and major disasters they have fullfilled that role MUCH MUCH better than those who claimed to fullfil the "Old Testament" by replacing its laws with the "New Testamant".

Abraham did nothing wrong and his two sons (the two we are looking at here) had their own destinies and it took until over 3000 years later that their descendants fought their first major war against each other. And that war was started not by either of them, but by an ideology that developed in the Christian world.

I agree it’s sometimes necessary to go to war even though you know innocent people will die however we’re both rationalizing this using our own logic, where in scripture does it say it’s ok for innocent people to be killed in war for the good of society? I think there’s allot in scripture that says that’s a sin but the whole area seems to be up for interpretation.

Are we supposed to love our enemies or kill them? When does it become necessary to kill an enemy even if you have to take another out with them rather than love them? Is it only ok when stopping the spread of evil or is it ok to destroy any perceived danger to society?  Christianity certainly used to think that, were they wrong then or should we now be rounding up the heretics? I know many feel that we should, an Orlando student is now receiving death threats for not eating the communion wafer.  

This sounds like the same rationalization radical Islam uses to support killing infidels. They’re just fighting evil for the good of their society. The problem with evil is that something can be declared so without any justification. A leader can wave his hand and declare whole regions evil threats without any explanation. We’re all supposed to be evil sinners and are commanded to fight evil in our own hearts. Where in the Bible does it say we have standing orders to kill anyone we think is evil. Many bad and wicked things happen as a result of arbitrarily labeling things evil. 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am.

Read this thread:

https://forums.joeuser.com/315141

It should give you an idea of how far we got regarding validity of text and what it means before you arrived to hoin the discussion.

 

A most curious statement. I don't know about Christianity, but Judaism divides sins against man from sins against God. Even if God commanded it, I don't know that it would not be a sin against man.  God commanding murder?  Not very Godly.

 

Be well.

s/hoin/join/

Edit button vanished again.

 

Leauki,  next time, post, then hit the refresh button. Be well.

Please don't bother Leauki. I'm not interested in what others say is correct or not, and I didn't come to join in any conversation either, it was not my choice to come here at all. I came to deliver a message no more no less. Simply try to think of me as the mailman. I don't chose whom gets the message, nor do I care who does since I have no personal interest in them, I simply deliver it. Also like the mailman I don't care if you read the message, tear it in half and throw it away, or return it to the sender.

The point of the message is to cause those who listen to question, and in the questioning ask, and not ask me either but to ask THE I AM.

many believe, as do I, that what we are seeing today between the Arabs and the Jews goes back directly to Ishmaael and Isaac. In fact it says right in Genesis this about the birth of Ishmael:

"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren" Gen 17:12

This is prophecy right in front of our eyes written thousands of years before. Sure sounds like war between the Arabs and the Jews before the Jews were even born yet.



yes this is true.



I disagree. What did Jesus mean when he said what he did in Matt 27 (I quoted above)? What did he mean when he said "you have heard what they said of old time?"



I agree. Even if I do support war in order to suppress evil and bring peace I still struggle with the whole concept of war as well. Why can't people just get along? The answer to that is just plain and simple....sin.



Abraham actually did alot of things wrong including the whole Hagar incident. Many times he went ahead of the Lord, like in this instance. He didn't trust God like he should have and listened to his wife (sound familiar?). He was a work in process.



really? Where do you get this? I just showed you where it says that Ishmael would be a man of war in Gen 17 and that his hand would be against EVERY man. Heck they do even fight amongst themselves don't they?



many times especially in the Torah but not limited to. There were reasons for each incidence tho so it wasn't just a blatent kill all the woman and children. Back then the evil was so bad this had to be done. People were sacrificing their children to the god Molech and involved in other such evil practicies. It was so embedded in their culture God commanded a total wiping out. Imagine taking a little baby and sliding him down into a firey pit alive to appease this god Molech.

God did not want Israel contaminated with this evil. Consider Sodom and Gommorrah. Many "innocents" must have died during that time. Consider the flood. Same thing. Scripture says these times the world was filled with every imaginable wickedness. It's not hard to imagine when we look at certain parts of our world today even. Think about Hitler, Saddam, Stalin just for beginners. I don't think this takes much fanciful interpretation to see that God does call for drastic measures at times.



now this is different. As individuals we are called to love our enemies. But corporately war is a sad necessity and a just war is sanctioned by God.



am in total agreement with you Sodaiho. God calls us to love one another not kill one another. Not one instance in the NT or even in the OT that I can think of that I know of where God tells one person to kill another. Even when Moses killed the Egyptian he did that on his own.

LULA POSTS:

sodaiho posts:

About the Jews paying too much attention to hyper strict rules on the Sabbath and Christ reaction, I was referring to St.Mark 2:23-28:

"And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the cornfields on the Sabbath that his disciples began to go forward and to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to Him, "Behold, what they are doing is not lawful on the Sabbath day." And He said to them, "Have you never read what Daivid did, when he was in need and was hungry himself, and they who were with him? How he went into the house of God under Abiathar he High Priest, and ate the loaves of the Proposition, which was not lawful for any but the priests to eat and also gave it to those who were with him?" And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: so the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath also."

Abiathar's action anticipates what Christ teaches here. Already in the OLd Testament, God had established a hierarchy in the precepts of the Law so that the lesser ones yielded to the main ones.

This explains why a ceremonial precept should yield before a precept of natural law. Similiarly, the commandment to keep the Sabbath doesn't come before the duty to seek basic subsistence. This passage of the Gospel underlines the value of the human person over and above economic and social development. The social order and its development must yield to the good of the person, since the order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons and not the other way around as the Lord suggested when He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The social order requires constant improvement: it must be founded in truth, built on justice, and enlivened by love.

Finally, in this passage Christ teaches God's purpose in instituting the sabbath. God established it for man's good, to help him rest and devote himself to divine worship in joy and peace. The Pharisees through their interpretation of the Law, had turned this day into a source of anguish and scruple due to all the various prescriptions and phohibitions they introduced.

By proclaiming Himself Lord of the Sabbath, Christ affirms His divinity and universal authority. Becasue He is the Lord, He has the power to establish other laws as Yahweh had in the Old Testament.

Thank you for the link...getting Jewish perspective on various passages of Gospel is interesting indeed.

Yes, I understand the Torah allowed divorce for the ancient Israelites...a husband could put away his wife for any reason...nice, huh?


By the time of Christ, marriage had lost its essential and original characteristics which God Himself had impressed. Christ elevated marriage by restoring its primitive unity, iddissolubility and sanctity.

The Pharisees asked Christ, "Is it not lawful for a man to put away his wife?" and Jesus answered, "Have you not read that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? and He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh"? Therefore, now they are not two, but one flesh." St.Matt.19:4-5.

"What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." 19:6.

With these words, Christ sanctions the unity of marriage. He says that man shall cleave to his wife, not WIVES OR WITH ANOTHER MAN and that they are no longer two, but one flesh---not two, three, or four.

Christ also restored marriage its sanctity...raising the marriage contract to the highest degree of sanctity and of dignity by making it a Sacrament and "a great sacrament, as St.Paul calls it, comparing the union of a husband and wife to the union of Christ with the Church, His spouse.

So, here Christ elevated marriage, the woman and the family.

And silly Nighshades refuses to believe that Christianity changed the world!

KFC POSTS:

Nightshades posts:

taking away their civil rights? Homosexual people already get equal treatment under the law...have you ever seen a shop window sign that says, Homosexuals need not apply? or when were homosexuals ever stopped from sitting whereever they wanted on a bus..or told to eat in their own separate section of a restaurant or drink at a separate public drinking fountain?

Our nations civil rights laws are based upon innate characteristics...like skin color, gender, ethnicity, not sexual behavior. Black people don't to bed and wake up white whereas homosexuals can and have changed their sexual behavior.

And as far as judging, we are not to judge hearts and souls, that's Almighty God's job, but we are to judge behavior...homosexuality is sinful behavior that should not be sanctioned, condoned or made equal to heterosexuality in our laws.


As far as getting married, they have the same right to get married as everyone else does under the law...they (maybe 3% of the population) are demanding that society changes the 2,000 year old definition of marriage! But they are pushing hard for it. Same-sex "marriage" is next step on their agenda...when and if it is passed into national, the Church will be the next in line to get hit with hate crime lawsuits. It'll be marry us or lose your tax exempt status.



Population wise, and proportionately speaking, homosexual men have the highest rate of HIVAIDS.

God's rule is chastity before marriage and fidelty afterwards. The only sexual conduct that God condones is that of a man and a woman within the marital bond. Laws that support traditional marriage are the only ones that should be legislated.




Yes, Christ was Jewish and so weren't most of His Apostles and early disciples...and He intended and succeeded in establishing Christianity...read Sacred Scripture for all the details.

It hasn't changed the world. The world is no better than it was before, or don't you listen to the news? Are you not aware of the fact that mankind continually comes up with newer and better ways of killing each other, to the point that they could annihilate the entire world?

Christians have a higher divorce rate than any other religion, I'm sorry but those are the facts and they do seem to contradict what you are saying.

The christian European nations prior to the formation of the United States did treat their women like chattel, and divorce could be and was obtained by papal dispensation.

Christ may have elevated marriage, women and the family, but mankind did not and has not practiced what he preached, not even the christians.

"homosexuality is sinful behavior that should not be sanctioned, condoned or made equal to heterosexuality in our laws."

I wasn't aware that only christians exclusively owned this country. Who gave it to them? It's my understanding as well as being stated in the constitution, that there was to be a separation between church and state.

"Population wise, and proportionately speaking, homosexual men have the highest rate of HIVAIDS."

Quote me the source of your statistics. HIV is not the only sexually tranmitted disease that threatens public health. It is the only one that others think that they can blame on homosexuals however.

"It'll be marry us or lose your tax exempt status."

That statement is an assumption on your part. I've not heard or read any statement from the gay community to that effect. If you have, give me the source.

"God's rule is chastity before marriage and fidelty afterwards. The only sexual conduct that God condones is that of a man and a woman within the marital bond. Laws that support traditional marriage are the only ones that should be legislated."

God doesn't rule this country. Not only is he not in the constitution or the declaration of independence, he was deliberately left out of it. It reads "their creator", not god. The words "their creator" could mean anyone or anything. It is an assumption to think that it means God.

"Yes, Christ was Jewish and so weren't most of His Apostles and early disciples...and He intended and succeeded in establishing Christianity...read Sacred Scripture for all the details."

If Christ had intended to establish a new religion he would have done so himself. He didn't. He did prophesize that one would be established with Peter as the base. (He evn prophisized that Peter would deny him, not only once but three times) Historically there is no evidence that Peter or any apostle established a new religion. (If anyone, Paul of Tarsus or Constantine can take credit for that.) A prophecy does not indicate that it was Jesus's intention. No where does he say to his apostles "go forth and start a new religion". He even specifically told his apostles not "to go into the Gentiles". That he had come to gather the lost sheep of Israel and to be a witness to the Gentiles. If he had meant to gather them also, he would have stated so. Before you tell me that they are the "other fold", let me remind you that he stated that he was going to administer to his other fold. Have you seen him yet, or even another like him? The new convenant that he established was for the hebrew nation not the Gentiles. It is the christian's own desire that tells them this, not Jesus.