Religious Beliefs Based only on the Christian Bible Must Condemn Homosexual Relationships

That is alot of information you have, and i am impressed at the length you have gone to to express your opinion, but you have made the assumption that a descicion of wether or not something is sinful, should be decided on wether or not (your) belief on which interpretation of scripture is correct, you have made statements but given no proof, and i am herd pressed to believe that you understand and have read the original greek texts yourself, also the greek language purposefully used words that covered a broad spectrum of words, therefore when translated to a different language it can be misinterpreted in many ways because some translators may prefer to use the word they perceive it as, while another perceives it a different way, when in reality it was meant to mean many different things, the same way (love) in english can mean love of a friend, love of a wife, or love of a mother. On another note, the old testament is not useless in teaching of what is right and what is sinful, when Jesus speaks of coming not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, he means just that, not to remove laws that were already there, but to clarify what already was here is something I would have neither time nor mental ability to create, but i think the person who did and I will post it here on his behalf, this essay was not intended to reprove homosexualtiy, but it does clarify on the subject of the validity of the old testament ( Even with the Old Testament of the Bible showing support for martial arts training, some might argue that the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament – that God's position on warfare changed when Jesus came on the scene. It might be said that the God of the Old Testament was about war and the God of the New Testament is about peace. The Bible, however, does not support this. James 1:17 says that God does not change, and Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ [God] is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. As we continue to study this topic, we will see that the New Testament also discusses self-defense and the idea of martial arts. Matthew 5:38-42, in which Jesus talks about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", has been used to condemn martial arts. It reads, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." At first glance this passage seems to be advocating a reversal of the Old Testament laws. I was swayed by this argument myself, and was torn in my own convictions for some time. But when I finally decided to dig deeper into the Bible, I was amazed and encouraged to find some answers. Many people who want to obey the Bible simply gloss over this scripture, like I did, because they are torn between what they think the Bible says and their consciences telling them to prepare for warfare and to protect. The truth is that Jesus never intended to abolish the Old Testament laws. He only intended to clarify them, to reinforce them, fulfill them, and reveal God's heart behind them. This is what Jesus says just moments earlier in Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the [Old Testament] Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." When Jesus speaks about "turning the other cheek", in Matthew 5, he is referring to the Old Testament Mosaic laws found in Exodus 21, 22 and 23. These chapters in Exodus contain the laws God gave to his people, which reinforce and further detail the famous "ten commandments". Jesus is specifically referring to Exodus 21:22 where God explains what punishment should be given if men are fighting and an innocent by-stander is harmed (in this instance, a pregnant woman). This is not a scripture about self-defense but about restitution and punishment for a crime. Jesus referred to this scripture because the people, in religious self-righteousness, were using this particular scripture to justify retaliation and vengeance. "An eye for an eye" had become an excuse to be intolerant and merciless toward one another. A closer look at the "act of aggression" that Jesus refers to as a strike on the cheek, will reveal that he is talking about an insult rather than a fighting fist. The word "strike" is translated from the Greek word "rhapizo" which is used interchangeably with the word "slap". In the Jewish culture (as in many other cultures), a slap in the face was a form of humiliation or rebuke. It was not necessarily a physical attack and was not meant to result in physical harm. Even Exodus 21:21 (regarding "an eye for an eye") says that if, as a result of a conflict, a pregnant by-stander is forced to give birth pre-maturely but there is no serious injury to the woman or the baby, "an eye for an eye" should not be applied as a punishment. Jesus is confirming that this Old Testament law regarding punishment is not to be used as an excuse for retaliation when inconvenienced or insulted. Jesus is exposing the heart of man and is further clarifying the Old Testament Law. God's desire is that we don't retaliate but rather that we restrain our emotions in the heat of conflict and maintain righteousness and mercifulness. We are not to pounce on our adversary at the first sign that we have been offended. The ultimate goal of God is to win over the offender, help him to see God's mercy and institute a change of heart in the offender (see 2 Peter 3:9-15 and Luke 9:51-56 for further study).