Question about New Testament (with OT)

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Grey Wolf" <greywolf1 at j...>
wrote:
> Grey_Wolf:
>
> ...large snip...
> ... your point is that gay sex is  not sin, and my point is that it 
> is not immoral, but it *is* defined as  sin in the Old Testament.
>  

bboy_mn:

Yes... yes... I do get it. I really do. Suprisingly, I agree with you.
In fact, that is the very thing I was trying to get at, and while my
many paragraphs didn't quite get the job done, you managed it in an
amazingly few words.

I will touch on a delicate area, and that has to do with whether the
Bible is a direct quote for the mouth of God, or whether it is simply
a divinely inspired work. Again, I dictate reality to no one; it's
just my opinion. Because there are so many flaws and contradictions in
the Bible, I can not accept it as the direct 'His mouth to our ears'
word of God. 

It was written by men who are flawed creature subject to prejudice,
and customs and opinions of the times. There were many things that
were considered absolute right and truth, and Jesus directly
contradicted them, many times, not just verbally but in his actions.
He violated the absolute 'Word of God' rules and regulations of his
day, or at least what people were told to believe was the absolute
'Word of God'. So, basically humanity is flawed, and therefore
anything it creates will be flawed. Not useless, not invalid, not
irrelevant, just flawed.


> 
> and, in the same line, bboy_mn:
> > When I say 'harm', I mean in every way, and on every front, and 
> > for a  lifetime.  Harm must be weighed over a lifetime and it must
> > be weighed on a physical, emotional, pschological, intellectual, 
> > and spiritual fronts. 
> 

> 
> Anyway, in the issue of harm: I agree that a good legal system - is
> one  that punishes only those acts which physically harms or could 
> conceivably harm a non-consensual individual. ...edited...
> 
> Steve has a nice list of all ways you can harm someone, including 
> psychological. To which I'm going to give a counter-example (taken
> from the previous link):
> 
> "At what point does behavior become so unacceptable that we should
> tell  our government to lock people up? The answer, as explored in 
> this book: We lock people up only when they physically harm the 
> person or property of a nonconsenting other.
> 
> ...really big edit....
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf


bboy_mn:
Just one last comment related to harm. The legal and moral system, as
you seem to well know, are not one in the same. That which is illegal
is not necessarily immoral, and that which is immoral is not
necessarily, nor should it be, illegal. 

Harm from a legal stand point is much different than harm from a moral
and spiritual perspective.

Not pushing any implications on to anyone else in saying this, just
making an observation.

bboy_mn