According to God himself.
As all the myriad of religions, interpretations and denominations demonstrate....that can be a bit more difficult to glean than you may think. Even within Christianity, there is far from universal consensus.
Christians used to kill gays, citing 'According to God himself'. Either God changed his mind, they're wrong, or you are. None of which bodes well for the 'according to god' theory. As it demonstrates, at best, that God's will is difficult to glean.
See above for all the different interpretations possible. Interpreting around things you don't want to do is also very Christian. As all the cheese burgers and unkilled adulterers demonstrate.
People must interpret the book. And its in the interpreting that disagreements are found.
God doesn't come down to break ties and tell you whose interpretations are right.
God expects us to obey his will and his commandments, and some are so painfully straight forward that it can be construed as defiance to "reinterpret" them. God comes to break all the ties when it comes time to judge all of mankind in the end.
And until then......its up to us to decide who got it right and who didn't. You assume that your right. Just as all religious people do. But clearly some of you are wrong. Its quite possible that all of you are.
Buddhism has the Buddhavacana, Christianity the Bible, Islam the Qur'an, and Judaism with the Masoretic Texts; just to name a few. Each of these faiths have a book or texts which give directions on how one must worship and practice their respective faiths. While there are different iterations of these texts, the goal remains the same: glorification, worship, and obedience of and to the deity.
And as all the sects and disagreements among those religions and between them demonstrates......there is clearly profound disagreement on the nature of god and the meaning of the books. Or even which books are to be used.
The synthesis of religion is a two way street. With interpretations of the books influencing the people. And the people influencing the interpretations of the book. As the people change, so too do their interpretations.
Which is why Pennsylvania is no longer quoting Leviticus as their law on homosexuality.
According to some, the Founders weren't Christians and were "Deists." That argument is used when others contend America was founded as a Christian nation.
When Pennsylvania quotes Leviticus verses word for word as their law, its hard to argue for a lack of religious motivation in that law.
So, why are we now attributing them to Christianity? I argue that the Founders were perverting the scriptures, just as the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians are today (yes, in my mind they are twisting the scriptures around to appease the public conscience, or the individual's).
So the founders got it wrong.....but you got it right? Based on your interpretations of the Bible.
You're kinda demonstrating my point here. And that's limiting ourselves to one faith in a very similar cultural and historical tradition as your own, using essentially identical text. if we venture even slightly outside this, things get even muddier. And when we start working between religions, muddier still.
All with no Leviathan. Just us.
God is unchanging, immutable. His will never changed. The people changed, and departed from his will in the process.
Unless the Founder were wrong in which case you could be right. See how hopelessly subjective this is? As there is no one to say who got it right and who didn't. Or if anyone did.
You assume you got it right. But you could be wrong, just as the founders were wrong. Or both of you got it wrong and someone else got it right. Or so far no one has.
With each group believing they were right using a nearly identical process as you are using now. If they are wrong and they're using virtually the same process than you do, then your process is wildly unreliable at best. And provably false at worse.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just go with 'unreliable'.
Actually, if we are all reading the same Bible, I contend those verses would hold the same meaning to everyone. If the Bible says in no uncertain terms "marriage is between one man and one woman" then such an assertion isn't up for debate.
All the different interpretations, priorities and conclusions contradict your contention. As one need only prioritize another passage to interpret around what you believe is sacrosanct.
For example....why aren't modern Christians killing gays as the Bible commands? 'Him shall ye kill' is pretty straight forward. Yet you've found other passages elsewhere that you believe override the clear language of the Bible and relieve of the obligation to follow a very clear commandment.
And anyone can do that. Based on whatever they choose to believe. That's the synthesis of religion.
