That means you'll never use the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument, right?
Sodomy vs. Shellfish
- Thread starter DXPose
- Start date
That means you'll never use the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument, right?
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
On the topic at hand.. This is my take on it.
We need to read Leviticus 18 in context. No sensible person would question any of the other verses in this chapter, prohibitions against incest, beastiality and child sacrifice. So why do we question this one verse, verse 22? What makes this verse no longer apply, yet the others still do? There is no answer to that, as this whole chapter still applies to us today.
There is a distinct difference between moral and ceremonial law. The ceremonial law no longer applies. The moral law clearly does. Also, because homosexuality is again mentioned in the New Testament, that is a clear ratification of the old testament texts regarding the issue.
We need to read Leviticus 18 in context. No sensible person would question any of the other verses in this chapter, prohibitions against incest, beastiality and child sacrifice. So why do we question this one verse, verse 22? What makes this verse no longer apply, yet the others still do? There is no answer to that, as this whole chapter still applies to us today.
There is a distinct difference between moral and ceremonial law. The ceremonial law no longer applies. The moral law clearly does. Also, because homosexuality is again mentioned in the New Testament, that is a clear ratification of the old testament texts regarding the issue.
According to your logic, shrimp and lobster is an abomination and should be as grave a sin as your belief in homosexual immorality. Also according your logic, slavery is just, multiple wives, subordination of women, selling children to slavery are all justified as well. Let's not forget, man wrote the bible, not God. I find it interesting that there is no reason given why homeosexuality is immoral other than "God says so" by the homophobics. It is just a biased and ignorant stance by homophobic when in fact, it is just as much an expression of love for one another as heterosexuals share.
So Deuteronomy 25:11 is okay by you?
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-hates-shrimp.html
Does God hate shrimp?
(have not read all of the thread)
Does God hate shrimp?
(have not read all of the thread)
I see the cafeteria Christians are playing "my sin is nicer than your sin" again.
The issue is not whether homosexual behaviour is natural or normal. It is whether it is immoral.
But even on the issue of whether it is natural, you seem to be saying that because homosexuality occurs then it must be natural. That's assuming the conclusion.
Nope. Paul for example has said "If you are bound to one law (of circumcision) then you are bound to the whole law." Galatians.
Sounds like you are looking for an excuse to now avoid the responsibility that you have once taken upon yourself.
Can you give the scripture reference for that?
Whatever their argument is, it is certainly true that Christians are not subject to the Mosaic law.
A lot of scripture but it doesn't support your point!
I'm not trying to defend homosexuality here but this passage (once again) doesn't support what you are saying about it. It sounds to me as if in this passage, homosexuality (and lesbianism) were themselves the punishments for arrogance.
Friends, there seems to be a lot of jumping through hoops trying to divide up the Old Testament laws into things like ceremonial, moral and who knows what else. You often hear people say that it is really the ten commandments that are still binding on Christians. Yet others say that you have to transpose the OT laws into our modern culture. And so it goes on and on, people trying to get round the law, people trying to pick and choose.
"What? But officer I am not subject to the laws of parking. These are not moral laws. The laws of parking are only there to stop people who profligately and selfishly block the roads and I am certainly not one of those. I was only there 10 minutes and besides..."
You get the point? Law doesn't work like that! Just get real ok? Law isn't something you have any choice about. If you don't like the laws of your country, the ones you were born under, your only options are to lobby through the usual channels to get them changed or to leave the country.
Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all things have been fulfilled. Heaven and Earth would sooner pass away. You have it from the Master. Sorry for sounding preachy but what you are doing is compromising the meaning of the Bible.
"What? But officer I am not subject to the laws of parking. These are not moral laws. The laws of parking are only there to stop people who profligately and selfishly block the roads and I am certainly not one of those. I was only there 10 minutes and besides..."
You get the point? Law doesn't work like that! Just get real ok? Law isn't something you have any choice about. If you don't like the laws of your country, the ones you were born under, your only options are to lobby through the usual channels to get them changed or to leave the country.
Not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all things have been fulfilled. Heaven and Earth would sooner pass away. You have it from the Master. Sorry for sounding preachy but what you are doing is compromising the meaning of the Bible.
genuineoriginal
New member
I like to use the Biblical arguments against homosexual acts.
One of them is Paul's argument that it is not natural:
Romans 1 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. |
genuineoriginal
New member
So what is your point?
Do you have a problem with any of these things?
Homosexual acts are an expression of hatred against God.
You need to spend more time studying Galatians. The Law was the Old Covenant with Israel. Jesus completed that Covenant with His death and resurrection and His blood sealed the New Covenant. We are no longer under the Covenant of Law (A law the brings only death) we are now under the Covenant of Grace that brings salvation to those who accept it.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
"Old Covenant" - Law written on tablets of stone, no power given to keep it.
"New Covenant" - Law written on tablets of heart, God will cause them to keep it.
Both covenants involve THE LAW, and both are made with the house of Judah, and house of Israel.
"New Covenant" - Law written on tablets of heart, God will cause them to keep it.
Both covenants involve THE LAW, and both are made with the house of Judah, and house of Israel.
You perhaps didn't notice my previous post in which I specifically stated that Christians were not subject to the law of Moses. But that doesn't mean that anyone can then reinterpret the Old Testament by dividing up the law in a way that it was never meant to be divided up. The law pointed to Christ and if you play about with it, then it can no longer fulfil that important role.
Okay. My bad. I apologize for my comment which was out of line. I agree that OT law cannot be divided they way many people attempt to divide it.
No probs CM.
Perhaps it is worth emphasising this part of my first post:
I replied:
I have seen this kind of explanation given quite often. It sounds like an excellent thing to say because it makes out the Bible to be far ahead of its time by several thousand years. It's the sort of thing you might try to say to a non-Christian in support of the Gospel: "Hey look the Bible isn't such an old fashioned book at all, it even proves that God knew about STDs and other forms of bacteria."
But this is rubbish and there are quite a few good reasons for that:
1. It elevates science above the Bible.
2. It proves the modern conceit that we now know more than anyone else has done before (and that therefore we are the best kind of people).
3. It might not be true at all. (Hence my asking for a scripture reference to show where this was in the Bible). I'm not saying STDs aren't carried by promiscuous relations, etc., just that this particular explanation of the commandments is not in the Bible.
4. It suppresses the true meaning of these particular commands and hence obliterates a significant part of the Bible. The true meaning is actually given in the Bible itself on several occasions. The refrain "You must be holy, as I am holy" occurs in the relevant passages enough times to have warranted it being given the nickname "The Holiness Code". But when the emphasis is only placed on how technically advanced the Bible is, this message is lost. It is in fact suppressed. This is a crime.
5. It's just sensationalism. (Which is perhaps a summary of the previous points so not a reason in its own right.)
6. It's culture-bound. This is similar to 1/2 above but consider even it were a good idea now to emulate the positive features of modern science, perhaps in another few decades, the feeling might be quite different. Perhaps the whole world would be more into magic or other religious or supernatural affiliations. Saying that the Bible predicted STDs might be taken to be quite negative in certain conceivable cultures.
Perhaps it is worth emphasising this part of my first post:
I replied:
I have seen this kind of explanation given quite often. It sounds like an excellent thing to say because it makes out the Bible to be far ahead of its time by several thousand years. It's the sort of thing you might try to say to a non-Christian in support of the Gospel: "Hey look the Bible isn't such an old fashioned book at all, it even proves that God knew about STDs and other forms of bacteria."
But this is rubbish and there are quite a few good reasons for that:
1. It elevates science above the Bible.
2. It proves the modern conceit that we now know more than anyone else has done before (and that therefore we are the best kind of people).
3. It might not be true at all. (Hence my asking for a scripture reference to show where this was in the Bible). I'm not saying STDs aren't carried by promiscuous relations, etc., just that this particular explanation of the commandments is not in the Bible.
4. It suppresses the true meaning of these particular commands and hence obliterates a significant part of the Bible. The true meaning is actually given in the Bible itself on several occasions. The refrain "You must be holy, as I am holy" occurs in the relevant passages enough times to have warranted it being given the nickname "The Holiness Code". But when the emphasis is only placed on how technically advanced the Bible is, this message is lost. It is in fact suppressed. This is a crime.
5. It's just sensationalism. (Which is perhaps a summary of the previous points so not a reason in its own right.)
6. It's culture-bound. This is similar to 1/2 above but consider even it were a good idea now to emulate the positive features of modern science, perhaps in another few decades, the feeling might be quite different. Perhaps the whole world would be more into magic or other religious or supernatural affiliations. Saying that the Bible predicted STDs might be taken to be quite negative in certain conceivable cultures.
Last edited:
:dunce:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
genuineoriginal
New member
Don't you have a problem with slavery?!
lain:
John 8:34 (New International Version) 34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. |
If you are committing homosexual acts, you are enslaving yourself to a wicked master.
lightninboy
Member
I have gone through Dani's blog. I am impressed with it. It is a great resource. I have featured it in my own blog. You aren't even supposed to object to homosexuality now and it is going to get worse, I reckon.