Why does being Christian mean you have to hate same-sex marriage?

Simple, I never did. How can I be absolutley sure if I'm saved? How can anyone? Only God knows for sure.We can guess, but can never fully know. If we are to hate all sin mentioned in the Bible, why don't we follow the other laws? *yes even the ones in the NT. All women have to have long hair in order to pray, or possibly wear some kind of scarf or hat on their heads when they pray. Does this mean that women who underwent chemo and lost their hair can not pray because they're not worthy? It is word for word what the Bible says. Yes people bring in the OT laws as the ones we need to follow, however, what about the laws throughout the Bible's entirety? If a woman is raped or has sex outside of marriage (consensual or not) she is stoned to death. Any man who teaches outside of the "right religion" (according to us, Christianity) should be crucified and killed. Again, not what is intended, but it's very tough to pick which verses we follow and That is why I wanted to know more about why this law in particular is singled out more so (NOT THE ONLY ONE, but nowadays- more so) than others.

How am I being lukewarm by letting people choose how they want to live? Your answers are very broad and not terribly thought out. Jesus never forced his teachings on anyone, why do Chrisitians think that is somehow our role now?

Go back to the original Hebrew and translate from that. That's the only way you'll know what God states in the Bible.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her."

In verses 23-24, one might assume that she was not raped but instead complied but her not calling out for help. But that is for another debate.

The lamb was actually a representation of the Messiah who would die in our place for our sin. In no way did the lamb remove the sin, but the faith of the people, and act of humbleness and seeking forgiveness and redemption removed away their sin.

Creatures such as catfish, shrimp, etc... are considered to be the cleaners of the lakes, oceans, rivers and so forth. They remove much of the pollution that would otherwise enter our body. God declared these of limits to the JEWS as a means of protecting them and keeping them healthy.

--------------
As for homosexuals, we need to treat them as people, because quite simply, that's what they are. Their sin is in no ways greater or smaller than the sins perpetrated by those who are heterosexual, at least in God's eyes. In no way do we condone the sin, but we do love the person, simply because Christ commands us to. In that way, as Chasten has said, we shine a light to others in which God is glorified.

Yes, I want to know what is right. I understand that there are other that disagree with my view, my question is WHY is it that way? How do we know beyond a doubt that we can interpret that passage and nothing else?

And I understand most of that except the first part... In the scripture it says the woman must be engaged for all this to apply. Is that the case? Sorry for all the questions Just trying to understand each passage/rule word by word.

I included the scripture, because the part you were talking about stoning really only refers to those who were betrothed (a legal contract in the eyes of the Jews). Those who were not betrothed, instead, found themselves married to the rapist. (A fact that most women probably would balk at. Although there maybe that one I have yet met that wouldn't mind.)

I've read the Bible numerous times. I've asked God to show me what he wants me to see in His Word, however what He tells me is different from what I'm supposed to think according to Christianity. Hence the confusion. You will say it's because Satan is guiding me and not God, but how do you know that? How do I know that God is telling me the truth?

We no longer HAVE to commit sacrifices for our sins, but we still could. I mean, there is nothing that says you can not sacrifice to the Lord to attone for your sins, it's just not necessary anymore. These are the things I'm curious about. Yes, stoning was done away with, but why? Jesus died for our sins to be forgiven in their entirety. He didn't die for the sins so that they would not count anymore. This is why when someone murders someone else, they still go to jail even though Jesus died for that sin, they are still held accountable. Why? If stoning was done away with, why do people still go to jail for other sins?

And to say that the only reason I read the Bible is to promote my own thinking- is, I'm sorry,just dumb. I mean, honestly. How do you know what any person's motives are? Yes, I isolate certain parts of the Bible because I have questions over those passages. I quote those passages as evidence in what I find confusing. That's how you support a question. Suppose I asked "Why do cats purr?" Basically, you're saying I'm not allowed to mention anything cat related because I'm furthering my agenda and only "pointing out things to clearly make my point." Of course I am, that's how you ask a question....

Why do you assume I'm trying to disprove God's word? When I read the Scripture, and what God tells me when He guides me is to love all people. Do I agree with everything that they do? No. But does that mean I have to prevent others from doing what they want? By no means. I am to tolerate all people according to scripture. That does not mean follow in it and practice it myself. I tolerate it.

Do I think I'm going to win in disproving God's word? Absolutely not, but like I said NEVER did I say I was trying to disprove it. I might as well say you're trying to convince me that Smuckers Jelly is actually supposed to be spread on your stomach instead of eaten- you never said anything like that.

I have never said that sex before marriage is a good thing. If anything, I've asked constantly about my chances of being condemned for having sex outside of marriage even though it was rape as a child.

Should killers go to jail?In my mind, yes. According to scripture-I'm not so sure. If Christ died for everyone's sins, why pay the price by man's standards?THESE are the types of questions I have. WHY? Not "I think God is full of it, so I'm trying to disprove him" just as simple "Why do we follow this when the Bible says otherwise?" You say I try to disprove Scripture, if anything, it's the opposite. I use the Scripture as written, I don't interpret it, I read it straightforward and attempt to follow it as it says because once you try analyzing what God "actually meant" you can't win. If we are to follow the Word as it is, why do we interpret it at all?

Smith, you said tolerate here. That's the first time I've heard you say you only tolerate it. Most times, it comes across as if you condone it, which is a far different concept then toleration. Yes, because we live in a sinful world, we have to tolerate the beliefs of others, simply because we can not force them to believe as we do. However, toleration does not mean condoning and acceptance.

This is true, we do not have to condone or accept it, but is it really our place to say that they can't do something strictly because we wouldn't? For example- suppose it was a Muslim who wanted to pray facing Mecca. Should we ban them from expressing themselves because we don't pray to Mecca as Muslims? Should we ban marriages between a man and a woman if either of them has ever gone through a divorce simply because we don't condone divorces? This is where it gets tricky. How do we know where to draw the line?

According to Scripture as God has guided me to understand- I should not be a homosexual myself, however there are those who are homosexual. I am not to judge them at all, but rather love them as they are- same goes for any sinner (yes, including rapists and murderers.) God holds ultimate judgement and it is not my place to decide what is considered"right" according to Him. Until time that I meet my Savior in Heaven, do not infringe on others' lives. Live and let live. If people want to kill, steal, etc. that is 100% their decision and between them and God. Love is a gray area. There is no "right and wrong answer". You can't help who you fall in love with, so don't judge others for who they love. Yes, God made man and woman to be together originally, however once the government decided to take over God's idea of marriage, all arrangements are out the window. God will look into your heart, not who is in your pants. Don't judge others just because you are not comfortable with it. It's not your place to decide who is allowed to love another person.

I have a question, do believe all truth is relative or absolute?

It depends which version- God's? the absolute. Man's? Relative. The tricky part is regardless as to how you look at it, ultimately, the Bible was written by man. God did not print each and every copy of the Bible from his own personal printer and deliver it to each person. Translations have been done so many times that the truth is bound to be slightly distorted,yet we are to follow it exactly.

Did you know that when the scribes copied the OT, that if it was not copied correctly, that inaccurate copy was to be destroyed. No evidence of it was to be left, so as to prevent people from accepting something that was not in the Word of God. And I would not be surprised if the early Christians did the same with the NT.

In addition, who gave the law to man? How did man come to know how the Earth was created? Is God not capable of talking to man in a loud, clear, and audible voice, and telling man what to write? The fact is, the first five books, specifically Genesis, could not have been written by man alone, or else the whole Bible collapses. The foundation of Christianity is not only on just the Gospels, but also on the first five books of the Bible. God and God alone could only tell how He created Earth. If God is capable of creating the Earth, and informing man of how He created it, He is certainly capable of keeping the Bible, His Written Word, clear of inaccuracies.

As for translations, we always go back to the original texts. If the translations do not hold up to the original, then we are to no longer consider them. If they do, then we are to use them.

There are just some things that come into issue when you talk about using a translation of something. For example, I could say "Como el burro que tocó la flauta". Looking at it, it should say "Like the donkey that played the flute." but it translates to "By pure luck". So..... how do you know that that is exactly what everyone will read that as? You can't. There's no way. If we're not to interpret the Bible (2 Peter 1:20- Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.) then we have to read it straightforward and assume that the donkey played the flute. Twisting the words to come up with "By pure luck" and then condemning others when they don't come up with that translation is just silly. I'm sorry, but if people say "We need to follow the Bible as it's written" then we need to follow the donkey playing the flute. If we're willing to pick which parts still apply (And does it? Jesus claimed he never eliminated the OT-Matthew 5:17- Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.) "Fulfill" or "plēroō" if we're using that translation means to bring an end to. Fulfill - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary