"Hell, I'm not a Christian and even I know this."

Are you absolutely sure you aren't?

And what exactly is the basis for which rules apply and which don't? Convenience? Papal edict? The truth is, there's no middle ground. Taking some passages of the bible literally and others as obsolete is hypocritical, which, last time I checked, is a sin in its own right.

In any case, arguing against homosexuality based on biblical teachings is all good and fine, it's your religion, you get to preach it. But translating that from belief into law violates the first amendment, no matter how you cut it.

"For the last 30 years or so, perhaps a bit longer, we've failed to teach our children the bible"

If you ask me, we haven't failed enough!

So what you're saying is that God had different rules depending on who he was talking to?

What a load of tripe.

You either look on the bible as a bunch of people OF THEIR TIME writing what they DECIDED was God's law and infusing it with their own beliefs and prejudices, and therefore has to be read in that context and filtered based on the moral understandings of today. OR you take it ALL as fact, as written, don't pick and chose, DON'T try that shit.

Basically you have to take the book, look for the core message that is in there (be good to each other, treat others as you would be treated) and discard the rest of the crap that OTHERS have tacked on... don't say 'Well, of course slavery is wrong, so just ignore that bit', but at the same time 'homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so'... really, if you're going to be that much of a hypocrite you really should keep your mouth shut.

Do unto others.

You would not like it if others hated you for having sex with a woman, even though it's done behind closed doors and DOESN'T AFFECT THEM AT ALL... so why is it ok for you to do so to homosexuals?

So some things forbidden in the Old Testament are now be OK, but others only a few sentences away aren't? Did I miss something in Gospel where God put an addendum. Hey PalmBayChuck if you work or shop on the Sabbath or eat shell fish or pork you're going to hell just like any Fudge Packer. Gospel is gospel.

You live all the Levitical Law or none of it. You can't pick and choose.

Umm...what?

As devout a Christian I am, there's not much to debate here, for the sole reason that few opinions are going to be changed by some statement on a comment board.

Flame wars -1.

That site does have one or two decent points, but mostly it's a bunch of straw men and non-sequiturs. The only thing I'm going to talk about is the logic behind the arguments. Any comments regarding anything else will be ignored.
In their first argument about homosexuality, they're also accusing masturbation of being a more grave sin than abortion. Also, I'm no religious scholar, but I was under the impression that those who died before Christ or who never hear of Christ during their lifetime cannot go to Heaven, and an unborn fetus would fall into this category. I could be wrong on this though.
The next point on slavery doesn't refute the fact that the Bible condones the selling of one's children into slavery at all.
The next point on the Sabbath doesn't point out that the Bible says it's OK to work on the Sabbath, it just points out that the Bible contradicts itself. The following three points cannot all be logically true: 1) God is infallible, 2) Jesus is (at least a part of or an incarnation of) God, and 3) God said not to work on the Sabbath, but Jesus said that it was sometimes OK to work on the Sabbath.
My previous points, or points similar to them, can be applied to the section regarding the touching of a dead pig.
The last paragraph is the only one I find to be compelling, although it does prohibit the creation of mules. While the passages cited clearly do not cite a penalty for wearing a garment of multiple threads and planting two different kinds of crops next to each other, they still clearly prohibit it.

I thought the political undertones were hilarious.