Understanding the Basics of LAW:

Common Sense is the basis for the Common Law:

Having dealt with the likes of legalistic fundamentalism for years, - one of the epiphanies I experienced that freed me from their pained thinking was when I began to study Law & the principles of Law.  While many of the people who claim to "Believe the Bible" talk a lot, -- the fact is that very few (I have yet to meet even one), understand that the very 'rule-book' they worship is itself a book of Law (Paul writes that Scripture is given by divine inspiration {God} -- whom the book also calls the [1] Lawgiver & Judge) so the rules of legal construction apply. 

TWO TYPES:
    Laws can be broken down into (2) types.  Defined:

1) Mala prohibita: Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No J-walking".
2) Mala in se: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by their very nature such as murder, or rape.

What religious zealots often cannot see is the stark difference between these classifications.  With their understanding darkened & their brains switched off, some of the most ignorant & self deprecating premises get voiced.  What is more amazing, is that corrupt translations of their very own Bible have arisen from this ignorance -- and the commonly repeated mantra of "The Bible being the 'word of God' encompasses the mistranslation & a lie becomes repeated as if it was the truth.  The old saying applies: "One judge [translator] lies & another one [zealot] swears to it.  Mistranslation in the Bible?  Notwithstanding the difficulty to translating the original primitive languages -- there are examples of gross violation of translational protocol.  How severe?  How about adding text not even hinted to in the original Scripture: 1st John 5:7-8 in the King James Version is a prime example.  This is what a footnote in the NIV translation has to say about that: "7,8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)"!  On this website, the Scriptures that discuss the 'curse' of adding to God's words have been discussed -- and here is an example of that very offense, -- right in the Bible.  Are there more examples of this?  Yes.  However, (2) terms that I specifically want to point out that are fabrications of English -- not part of the original text in any way, shape or form are:
(1) Sodomite
(2) Homosexual
These terms & more are well documented as to their origins & complete lack of textual foundation.  Does this mean I'm "anti-Bible"?  No...I'm just anti-LIE. Popular-Christianity (& I use the term as a cultural description for the thing in the West that pretends to be the Apostolic Creed of today), has devolved to the point where: "Bubba-Bible knows John 3:16, and that God Hates Fags (& he's not so sure about John 3:16)..."

  I want to analyze this folly to show it for what it is.  Here's a parallel cite from the NIV, Young's Literal & Greek Bibles: I Corinthians 6:9

NIV-
"neither sexually immoral
 nor idolaters
 nor adulterers
 nor male prostitutes
*nor homosexual offenders
 nor thieves
 nor the greedy
 nor drunkards
 nor slanderers
 nor swindlers
 will inherit the kingdom of God
."
YLT-
"neither whoremongers,
 nor idolaters,
 nor adulterers,
 nor effeminate,
*nor sodomites,
 nor thieves,
 nor covetous,
 nor drunkards,
 nor revilers,
 nor extortioners,
 the reign of God shall inherit.
"    
GREEK-
πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε
ἀρσενοκοῖται  οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε μέθυσοι οὐ λοίδοροι οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι.

 

Why Greek?  Because that's what the original text was written in, Bubba (Some 15 centuries before King James suckled his first abomination.).
A few points of interest immediately visible between the NIV & YLT.  NIV is the later translation.  Notice where the older YLT reads: "Sodomites" -- how the newer NIV says "homosexual offenders".  The Greek term is: "
arsenokoitēs" - a term that has scholars guessing it's exact meaning!  Perhaps: "abuser of themselves with mankind".   My point is obvious: Somehow, "ABUSER" became "SODOMITE" (a term invented in the KJV - DT 23, that should have been translated as "male-prostitute" from the Hebrew "qâdêsh" [Which hints that "Young's Literal" isn't so 'literal' after all]).  Then, the invention of: "SODOMITE" later became "HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDER" - but the very TERM: "HomoSexual" is an INVENTED WORD, - a pseudo-creation of modern psychology by a non-psychologist!  There is a principle of Law that basically says that where doubt exists, the law is uncertain & benefit of the doubt is to be extended to anyone so charged with violations of that law. 

From the concepts of the original text, I would suggest that the word "arsenokoitēs" more likely forbids professional boxing & like activities, or maybe practices like sadomasochism (especially considering the concept of mutual ABUSE - I.E: (anal-play) that might tend to spread disease or cause other forms of harm.). However, basic same sex intimacy is simply not forbidden by the text.
The very foundation of Christianity is one of love and the New testament makes exceedingly clear that "Love works no ill toward its neighbor - therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Actions contrary to that are usually self evident; -- And same sex unions are not antagonistic to that principle in themselves. Although any relationship can suffer from wrong motives, Scriptures like Galatians 3:28c make it clear that gender cannot be a dividing line.
Also interesting: With the NIV version, a strange dynamic in the wording adds to the doubt of the text's meaning: Does the text forbid "homosexual offenses", or is it condemning people who "offend homosexuals"?  It does list: "homosexual offenders" as those who will not inherit God's kingdom!  By that reading: "Offend a homosexual & go straight to hell"!  Ironic, isn't it.  Overall: it's an example of an incredibly sloppy translation & VOID FOR VAGUENESS under any rational inspection. Yet, rabid fundamentalists take vague phrases like this & use them to threaten naive people with -- suggesting that "whatever it might mean ... well that better not be you!".  Once again, we find somebody saying "or even touch it, lest you die"!  The LAW doesn't work that way, & people who make assertions to the contrary are ignorant, evil, or both.  One Christian friend told me in confidence that he did not like the NIV because it was "soft on homosexuality".  In light of corrected theology, --one might argue that this "softness" is a reason to actually LIKE the NIV!

One of the easiest ways to spot a mistranslation however, is by looking at the CONTEXT of a passage.  You see, every category of transgression on the list cited above results in somebody inevitably being badly treated, abused, swindled or denied justice - when taken in context with other scriptures that cover similar concepts, -- that is, except (1).  How does being a "homosexual" - (even one who may be sexually active with someone) hurt anybody else?  I know of same-gender couples who have been together for years.  They've never had an STD-disease nor given one to anyone else.  Several have been together since high-school & for all we know, may be together until death does them part. In that context, the NIV might as well replace the term  HOMOSEXUAL, with "HETEROSEXUAL".  It would be just as meaningless there  - unless, of course, - you've got an 'agenda' (How ironic is that!).

Early into this topic, I named two types of laws:

1) Mala prohibita: Offenses prohibited by statute; I.E: 'No driving intoxicated".
2) Mala in se: Offenses at common law -- unlawful by their very nature such as murder.

Mala in se laws are self evident.  Do not steal, do not murder, & the like.  The negative repercussions of breaking such laws are visible instantly. 
Mala prohibita laws are in place to dissuade 'states of mind' that have high probabilities of eventually harming someone. "Do not drive while intoxicated", is such an example; -- Not because drunk driving in an of itself is harmful, but because it inevitably leads to tragedy of the driver &/ others. 

The primary, broad sweeping theme of New Testament Christianity is a command to:

1) Love God
2) Love People 

...END OF LIST. (Looks like Judge Moore's big, heavy courthouse monument with 10 commandments may have been 8 commandments too heavy!)

See, an attitude of LOVE automatically self-governs the individual because you can't be acting in a spirit of love while you're stealing from somebody.  You can't be acting in an attitude of love while you're encouraging the breaking of personal vows (yours or somebody else's).  You're not acting in an attitude of love if you're using deception within the body of a contract or statute to ensnare another.  You're not acting in an attitude of love while driving drunk. You're not acting in love if you're spreading disease. And you're not acting in an attitude of love when you despise the highest authority because you somehow think God is "unjust" or 'imaginary'.  Consider, if there is 'no God', then laws are meaningless -- as there is no ultimate source of accountability.  The belief that there is no God is to admit that evil people who lived in luxury & slipped peacefully off into 'death' while asleep 'got away with it'!  This may be too metaphysical for some to grasp, but extend your mind to the following notion: If LAW exists apart of the individual, then it's counterpart, JUSTICE must also exist apart of the individual.  Therefore, if LAW & JUSTICE exist independently of man, then man will ultimately be subject to them, -- if indeed Law & Justice are what the models hold as truth.  Therefore, if the present world seems to be somewhat devoid of "justice", but we know that it exists in perfection somewhere; -- Then it must be administered someplace beyond our perceptual acuity.  Evil men get away with nothing.  But, neither will you.  Have you seen 'eternity's witness protection program'? But I digress...

If God has said: Mala-Prohibita "Man & man"-"woman & woman" ... at what point does the act produce results that cause harm.  At what point does the proverbial 'drunk' - 'run over the child'?  At what point does the innocent's blood get shed?  Obviously, no double standards are allowed when answering this.  One cannot reason: "They might spread disease!", IF - it is also true that a "MAN & WOMAN" might spread disease. Some might argue "They can't reproduce!" Well then, perhaps all mixed-gender couples beyond childbearing years, or those who cannot bear children in their prime should be separated!  Since when is fertility a prerequisite for pair-bonding?  And so it will go: from premise, - to a test with a mixed couple; --  & then tell us please: WHERE IS THE CRIME COMMITTED THAT IS WORTHY OF DEATH AS SO MANY FUNDAMENTALISTS ASSERT GOD HAS SAID???

A rule for the sake of a rule?  Perhaps if one's a fool...

Changes brought about by the New Covenant:

Paul affirmed that all foods were acceptable in the new covenant (Rom 14:14).  The same 0ne who had declared certain foods UNclean in the 0T was the same who declared the matter a non-issue in the NT.  What matters is understanding the lesson/s derived from the rule in the 1st place.  It was an excellent illustration on Paul's part! See, in the Old testament, eating shellfish for example, was considered an "ABOMINATION" (The favorite word used by fundamentalists to describe 'Ho-Mo-Sekshuals").  From casual observation, it's obvious that you don't get more intimate with something than to eat it and incorporate it into your own body.  That lobster stew is now part of your blood & brain!  (You ABOMINATION!  - N0T!)  Therefore, if the ceremonial "cleanness" of all foods is moot, and under this covenant; -- Then I can eat an 'abominable lobster' without becoming 'defiled' by it! Likewise I should certainly be able to tongue-wrestle with my like-gender partner -- because: If putting an ABOMINATION into my mouth & swallowing can't defile me; -- Then putting an ABOMINATION into my mouth & swallowing, can't defile me (not that another person is an abomination, --but for the sake of making an extreme point)!  
I know what some of you are thinking: How ABOMINABLE of me to write that!  G0YS: It's the dawn of a wonderful heresy! 

To Summarize: