The consequence of mixing wool and linen is already existent within the mixing of the two fabrics and will still occur today. Again,the law of not mixing wool with linen was for the benefit of God's children, and not something punishable by God. So this is a miserable failure for an argument to promote homosexual sin.
But it is still an ABOMINATION. So feel free to continue to place one abomination above another, as if you know better than God.
And just because you used one person's interpretation to neatly explain away something uncomfortable doesn't make you right (or necessarily wrong).
Again, I am going to quote myself:
AngelusSax said:
I'm not here to promote homosexuality. I am here to promote thought and discussion, and the willingness and ability to see more than one POV and recognize that just because person A and person B disagree, that one of them is not necessarily wrong by default. There is such a thing as a "yes and yes" answer to "is this point correct, or this other point?"
So stop assuming I'm trying to promote homosexuality. Such is not my motive. To quote a rabbi who was quoted in "The Gospel According to Moses" (I don't remember the rabbi's name, sorry):
"How can we learn anything if no one will disagree with me?"
I do appreciate you bringing in a different view on the mixed fibers thing, though. Perhaps that IS right. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps it is right but not the real point after all.
And let's point out one other thing. The law which condemns homosexual acts (interestingly, in the OT, ONLY man-on-man, woman-on-woman was not mentioned, leading many to believe it was about degradation of the traditional view of manhood, not the sex itself) also COMMANDS that they be killed. If you break that part of the command, you break the entire law.
I know Jesus taught us to forgive sinners and whatnot, but still, the Law is the Law, and it's not enough to just "not commit the sin" to be obeying it... one must be willing to do their part in the consequences spelled out, otherwise that becomes a sin of omission.
Paul even said that God's heart did not change towards sexual sins, but that being not under the law, the death penalty no longer could be applied.
The big question is, however, what was his understanding of homosexual relationships? In a society where a 13-year-old boy was hand-picked by parents to marry a 13-year-old girl, people did not have time to discover their orientation to the fullest (assuming it is something to discover), so any homosexual sex would be seen as a deviation, you were married at the onset of puberty to one of the opposite sex. So any homosexual sex would then be, by definition, adultery.
This is not necessarily so today, though many homosexuals do indeed marry members of the opposite sex, and thus adulterate themselves, having intercourse, designed as the deepest physical expression of love, with someone they do not really love.
Maybe homosexuals are called to celibacy, as a eunuch would be. Though of course, a eunuch would not have the drive to copulate, but that is, I realize, beside the point to many. To many others, though, it is not.
Let's assume you are straight and have a spouse. Let's assume that you enjoy sex with your spouse. Now, go just five years out of your life, in a row, without having sex, pretending it is forbidden, and if you engage in it then you don't really love Jesus and thus are not saved. Oh, and no self-gratification either, because that would conjure up sexual images in your mind and thus be like having sex anyway.
That is what you ask a homosexual to do for their entire life, not just five years. Certainly you can understand how hard that is for them, at the very least. Especially when they are told, by many, that the fact they are gay means they don't really love Jesus, aren't trying hard enough, etc. That translates, to many, "you're going to hell because of who you love".
This causes love to become a vice in the minds of some (I am speculating).
I used to be the ultimate fundamentalist when it came to homosexuality. It was safe, comfortable, and fun for me. Safe, because it was what I knew. Comfortable, for the same reason, plus I knew I was straight and therefore not needing to worry about it. Fun, because I enjoyed "spreading the good news" that "yes you too can become straight and get saved".
Then God decided He'd had enough of that from me, I suppose, because He came into my life in a more than superficial, John-Hagee-esque way, and now here I stand, I can do no other.
I know God is not finished working with/on me yet, and I can only pray that His will be done, even if that makes me uncomfortable in declaring to homosexuals, that they too are loved by God as they are, and are called to monogamy as heterosexual people are.
I don't know if all the prohibitions against homosexual sex are about the sex itself or not. If they are, I trust God will reveal that to me in such a way I cannot ignore it. And if they are not, I trust the same revelation will happen.
Until then, I sit on the fence, hoping it isn't barb-wire, can see both sides of the issue, partially agreeing with and partially disagreeing with both. I only appear pro-homosexuality on here sometimes to try and even out what I perceive to be a predominantly anti-homosexuality crowd. Consider me playing the part of Devil's Advocate in that regard then.
No longer under the Law? They are no longer to be put to death (under Jewish Law)..Yet, they remain worthy of death. God's heart attitude towards such sexual sin has not changed. Nor, has the Devil's.
We are ALL worthy of death. God's attitude toward any sin has not changed, so far as we know. Though if He does change a law, He has a right to do so, being God and all. But we are all worthy of death, and we all think "I'm not as bad as (insert group here)", which only makes us more worthy of death, frankly. The homosexual is no worse than the idle gossip. And they're no worse than those who spend all their time removing slivers of wood from their neighbor's eye before removing the tree from their own.
