Topic: The Religion Thread

[barrister]

who defines what clothing can be worn by either man or woman?

Those laws are for Christians.  If you are not a Christian, huwag mo nang intindihin yon kasi hindi para sa iyo yon.

But if you are a Christian, you yourself will decide, using your own conscience, whether or not you are cross-dressing.  Then it's up to God to decide if you deliberately violated, or simply made an honest mistake.

did the bible also said it is wrong to act like a woman if you are a man? what i mean is yung pilantik ng daliri at manner of speaking? saang sitas makikita yan?

No, it is not a sin.  Walang ganon sa bible.

If you mean talagang natural na may pilantik siya, hindi niya kasalanan yon kasi ginawa siyang ganon ng Diyos.

Huwag maniwala doon sa kesyo bawal daw ang "effeminate" sa 1 Cor. 6:9.  Kakapiraso lang ang naiintindihan sa bibliya non, mahilig lang magdunung-dunungan.  Hindi alam kung ano ang malakoi and arsenokoitai.

In the bible, Jesus talked about 3 kinds of eunuchs --- those who were born gay, those who were castrated as eunuchs, and those who are voluntarily celibate:  

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.  (Mt. 19:12)

Therefore, kung ginawa siyang bading ng Diyos, hindi niya kasalanan na ganon siya.

[Nelson de Leon]

So-called "converts"/ "success" stories are most likely either bisexuals simply renouncing their gay side or they're still gay and putting up a front for your judgmental eyes. You can only modify sexual BEHAVIOR but you can't change sexual orientation. Time and time again, reputable scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors have said homosexuality is as normal as being left-handed. Kayo lang mga super-banal ang matitigas ang ulo at makikitid ang mga utak na ayaw pa rin tanggapin to.

It's actually not a laughing matter, Nelson. Lots of LGBT people are driven to suicide because they cannot change and they get rejected by their families or they seem to change and lead miserable lives because they feel that they're living a lie.

If their families just learn to accept them for who they are, there will be no problem. Trying to force or guilt people to try and change their sexual orientation just to save yourself a little discomfort or potential embarrassment or to satisfy your religious beliefs is wrong. Period.

Yes. It's the sexual behavior i'm concerned with. Thanks for correcting me. I didn't mean to sound super-banal. With regards to living a lie are you referring to the usual "female trapped inside a male body" issue?

Tama naman na their families should accept them for who they are rather than rejecting or condemn them. And i also agree with you that forcing them to change is wrong.

[Klaus Weasley]

With regards to living a lie are you referring to the usual "female trapped inside a male body" issue?

Living like they're pretending to be straight but they're not. "Female trapped inside a male body" applies only to transgendered individuals.

[sharkey360]

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

"Love thy neighbor" is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the July issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.

While the study examined the link between religion, compassion and generosity, it did not directly examine the reasons for why highly religious people are less compelled by compassion to help others. However, researchers hypothesize that deeply religious people may be more strongly guided by a sense of moral obligation than their more non-religious counterparts.

"We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior," said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley.

Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," Saslow said.

In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as "When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them" were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.

When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: "These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals," the study found.

In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 "lab dollars" and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger.

"The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity," Willer said. "But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants."

In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played "economic trust games" in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount.

Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.

"Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer said.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/highly_religious_people_are_less_motivated_by_compassion_than_are_nonbelievers-90649

[Nelson de Leon]

Living like they're pretending to be straight but they're not. "Female trapped inside a male body" applies only to transgendered individuals.

Got it. So ang first reference nila is their feelings?

[JT]

You may have studied and memorize the whole bible, or even know hebrew and greek, or even expert in its laws and the laws of the land. My bible says unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven ... unless you repent, you shall likewise perish.

[bananabond]

For sir barister:


Sir barister ano ibig sabihin ni jesus dito na only god is good?

Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" -Mark 10:17

Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. -Mark 10:18

[barrister]

Please help me give a responsive answer by telling me what you want to understand.  Baka kasi magbigay ako ng mahabang explanation na hindi mo naman kailangan.   

Ang punto mo ba ay hindi Diyos si Kristo kasi ang Ama lang ang "good" at siya ay hindi "good"?

[bananabond]

No. Ibig sabihin ba ni jesus ay si god lang ang perfect? Did he somewhat implied na nagkakamali din siya?

[bananabond]

My thoughts?  Her tweet doesn't make sense.   

Sir barister can you please elaborate

[indie boi]

You may have studied and memorize the whole bible, or even know hebrew and greek, or even expert in its laws and the laws of the land. My bible says unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven ... unless you repent, you shall likewise perish.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "my bible"?

[JT]

I'm curious, what do you mean by "my bible"?

Ahhh, just an expression.  For some, when always referring to what is written in the bible gets a tendency to say "my bible says".

   

[barrister]

Sir barister can you please elaborate

Miriam Q's tweet doesn't make sense, kasi sabi niya it's not a sin.  Hindi naman pala sin, e bakit may deception of the devil pang pag-uusapan?

No. Ibig sabihin ba ni jesus ay si god lang ang perfect? Did he somewhat implied na nagkakamali din siya?

No, hindi ganon yon.  Ang ibig sabihin, Christ is also good because he is also God.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone..."

Jesus did not simply say, "I'm not God, so don't call me 'good,'" because that's not what Jesus meant.

Since the rich ruler was still a novice in spiritual matters, Jesus was indirectly telling him this --- You call me good, yet only God is good; therefore, are you aware that you are calling me God?

Therefore, Christ was not denying his divinity --- he was actually hinting that he is God.

But to an audience that is more knowledgable in spiritual matters, Christ directly called himself "good" --- "I am the good shepherd" (Mt. 10:11)  Bakit good si Kristo?  Di ba only God is good?  Sabi ni Kristo, mas direkta pa --- "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)  Di ba simple lang?

[Nelson de Leon]

Saan ba ang roots ng sign of the cross everytime nag-start ng prayer ng roman catholics? Yun in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Somebody told me na iba daw ang initial purpose nun. Ibang Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

[barrister]

Saan ba ang roots ng sign of the cross everytime nag-start ng prayer ng roman catholics? Yun in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Somebody told me na iba daw ang initial purpose nun. Ibang Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

No, halos ganon din ang original sign of the cross.  Wala namang kakaibang origin yon.  The earliest recorded reference to the sign of the cross was in the 2nd century by the author Tertullian.

Since hindi naman biblical ang sign of the cross, hindi na dapat gawing reference ang bible.  Wikipedia lang, OK nang reference   :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross

[sharkey360]

Catholic Priest Says Sexism Is ‘A Sin’

The Catholic Church, at least from an outsider’s perspective, is in a state of turmoil. The Church is plagued with sex abuse scandals, driving Catholics into the loving embrace of other denominations.

The Church, of course, has never had an inclusive relationship with women. As other branches of Christianity have modernized, even allowing women into the Priesthood, Catholics have doubled down, becoming highly engaged in the American Republican war on women. The Church hierarchy has even gone so far as to order nuns to drop some of their social service and pursue more of the Church’s anti-birth control, anti-choice agenda. The nuns are having none of that, insisting that they will keep feeding the poor and working toward social justice.

It’s not just the women of the Catholic Church who are recognizing that backwards is not the direction you want to travel if you want to arrive in the future. In an OpEd in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Catholic Priest, Roy Bourgeois questions the Church’s subjugation of women, saying that the Bible calls for men and women to be equal. He even calls sexism ‘a sin.’

I met many devout Catholic women who were also called by God to be priests. Such women are rejected based on the church’s teaching that only baptized men may be ordained.

This makes no sense to me. Don’t we profess that God created men and women of equal worth and dignity? Doesn’t Scripture state clearly that “There is neither male nor female. In Christ Jesus you are one” (Galatians 3:28)? How can we men say our call from God is authentic, but the call women feel is not?

After much reflection, study, and prayer, I believe the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women and our loving God, who calls both men and women to be priests. I also believe that to have a healthy, vibrant church, we need the wisdom, experiences, and voices of women in the priesthood.

The Vatican has referred to the ordination of women as “a grave scandal.” When most Catholics hear the word scandal, however, they think of the many priests who sexually abused children, and of the many bishops who covered up their horrific crimes.

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard we try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is not the way of God.

Bless you, Father Bourgeois.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/03/catholic-priest-says-sexism-is-a-sin/

[barrister]

Catholic Priest Says Sexism Is ‘A Sin’

...This makes no sense to me. Don’t we profess that God created men and women of equal worth and dignity? Doesn’t Scripture state clearly that “There is neither male nor female. In Christ Jesus you are one” (Galatians 3:28)? How can we men say our call from God is authentic, but the call women feel is not?

After much reflection, study, and prayer, I believe the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women and our loving God, who calls both men and women to be priests. I also believe that to have a healthy, vibrant church, we need the wisdom, experiences, and voices of women in the priesthood.

...Bless you, Father Bourgeois.

Hindi naiintindihan ni Father yung binabasa niya.  Galatians 3:28 is talking about salvation, not church heirarchy.

Under the Old Testament, only Jews were saved under Mosaic Law.  But with Jesus Christ under the New Testament, salvation became open to all --- whether Jew or Gentile, male or female:

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:23-29)

If salvation is open to all under the New Testament, does that automatically mean that under the same New Testament, women and men are now equal when it comes to church heirarchy?

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Tim. 2:11)

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Those are New Testament verses, unfortunately.  


  

[dpogs]

therefore, walang "Pastora".

or head of a local church na babae.

and head of the family is the father... not mother.

[ivannn]

therefore, walang "Pastora".

or head of a local church na babae.

and head of the family is the father... not mother.

noted. pero diba sa mga christians (pwede ba tayo mag name drop ng specific group or general term lang?)eh may mga pastora?

[dpogs]

noted. pero diba sa mga christians (pwede ba tayo mag name drop ng specific group or general term lang?)eh may mga pastora?

mga pentecostal churches... maraming pastora...

[Klaus Weasley]

A lot of the verses you cited are from St. Paul, not from Jesus, barrister.

I see no reason why women can't be priests. The only reason Jesus only chose men as his official disciples is that people only indeed listened to men at the time. If Jesus came today, he'd choose a few women. Let's face it, a lot of the people doing the Church's good work these days are NUNS, not the bishops who are too busy telling women what to do with their bodies.

[barrister]

A lot of the verses you cited are from St. Paul, not from Jesus, barrister.

The bible must be taken as a whole.  And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.

I see no reason why women can't be priests. The only reason Jesus only chose men as his official disciples is that people only indeed listened to men at the time. If Jesus came today, he'd choose a few women. Let's face it, a lot of the people doing the Church's good work these days are NUNS, not the bishops who are too busy telling women what to do with their bodies.

I respect your view.  That's much better than Fr. Bourgeois' take, because you acknowledge that it's just an opinion that is without biblical support.

What I find objectionable about Fr. Bourgeois' view is that he claims to find biblical support in Gal. 3:28, when a close analysis of the cited verse shows that the same is clearly inapplicable.

You are correct in saying that women can do the work of the church.  In fact, women were not prohibited from doing the work of the ministry in the New Testament. For example:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Rom. 16:1-2)

In that verse, Phoebe, a woman, was a church leader in Cenchreae with the position of deacon.  

How does that reconcile with the prohibition under 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35?  Tignan natin kung masagot ni sir JT, eksperto yata sa bibliya, e...    

[JT]

The bible must be taken as a whole.  And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.

I respect your view.  That's much better than Fr. Bourgeois' take, because you acknowledge that it's just an opinion that is without biblical support.

What I find objectionable about Fr. Bourgeois' view is that he claims to find biblical support in Gal. 3:28, when a close analysis of the cited verse shows that the same is clearly inapplicable.

You are correct in saying that women can do the work of the church.  In fact, women were not prohibited from doing the work of the ministry in the New Testament. For example:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Rom. 16:1-2)

In that verse, Phoebe, a woman, was a church leader in Cenchreae with the position of deacon.  

How does that reconcile with the prohibition under 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35?  Tignan natin kung masagot ni sir JT, eksperto yata sa bibliya, e...    

First of all, no one can even say that he is expert in the bible.  Bible says "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part". I only have the confidence to answer when I know it is clearly written in the scriptures. And we should not be taking the accolades for ourself.  Even Jesus Christ has given the credit to God when someone regard Him as good and for all the things He has done.

To reconcile 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 with the other verse, it is clearly written that Women are not allowed to teach spiritual matters TO MEN (esp in the church).  So they can minister to women, youth and children. And handle other positions in the church. The very reason why there are women pastors is because none of the men (in that church) are equipped or even committed to take the pastoral calling.  But I personally not agreeable on this arrangement, only men should be allowed as it is written.

Anyway, this was further explained in www.gotquestions.org so I extracted for your reading:
Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority.

There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse ? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

Hope this helps ....

[Klaus Weasley]

The bible must be taken as a whole.  And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.

Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.

I strongly suggest you browse through The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs. If you are really serious that the Bible must be taken as a whole.

[barrister]

Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.

By doing that, you would be taking the bible partially, not as a whole.

Let's take your shellfish example.  In the Old Testament, shellfish were unclean under Mosaic Law.  In the New Testament, Christ "declared all foods clean":

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19)

Are shellfish still prohibited?  Not anymore.

If you think shellfish are still prohibited, you are taking the bible partially, because you are only reading the law for the ancient Israelites.  

If you take the bible as a whole, you would see that it is the declaration of Jesus in the New Testament that governs Christians today.  

    

I strongly suggest you browse through The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs. If you are really serious that the Bible must be taken as a whole.

I am serious that the bible must be taken as a whole.  Which is precisely why I wouldn't read AJ Jacobs.

Mal. 4:4 says: Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

For whom were the decrees and laws of Moses given?  For all Israel lang.  Hindi kasama ang Pilipinas doon.  

[barrister]

YouTube bible reading from Rowan Atkinson (John 2):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=L5e-1sBM9FE&NR=1

[Dilbert7]

There is no such thing as 'only Jews were saved under Mosaic law'!

For one, Abraham is not a Jew himself.

And the harlot Rahab is even in Jesus' lineage.

The Jews (Israel) enjoyed God's blessing as a chosen nation, but it is not synonymous to (saved) 'salvation'!

[Dilbert7]

Man are distinct life from woman (since creation time).

Homosexuals are not distinct life from a man (or a woman). Thus, at birth, homosexuals does not exist.

However, homosexuals is a behavior developed overtime (environment is one big factor in such development of inclination). It is no different when you exist in a barbaric culture - you can not help it, you learn it, becomes part of the system - the norm.

To have those inclination or behavior is not bad in itself (sin). However, to indulge your body to a design not intended for it, becomes 'sin'. Of course, to those people who have no basis of morality other than pluralism, the idea of sin (in both lusts [mental] and deeds) does not hold.

[Dilbert7]

Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.

The acts of the chosen nation that screwed up God's care for them is not the standard to be followed.

In fact, all you have said have been written in the Bible for those who pay attention to take heed - it does come with it great punishment that until now is being paid for by Israel.

Jesus came to correct all those distortions the Jewish political and religious leaders made of God's laws. And after apostle Paul was given the full picture of God's design (the OT & NT happenings), he was able to explain so clearly the Mosaic law clearly because he is a lawyer himself - and he was able to connect the dots - how everything leads to God's deliverance of mankind.

[Klaus Weasley]

Homosexuals are not distinct life from a man (or a woman). Thus, at birth, homosexuals does not exist.

Not true. Homosexuality exists in nature. Lots of lower species of animals have been observed by scientists as exhibiting homosexual behavior.

However, homosexuals is a behavior developed overtime (environment is one big factor in such development of inclination).

I've known gay people who grew up in conservative religious homes and conservative religious communities and macho military and/or athletic families. So this argument doesn't really fly.