Today's Ruling

[LinkH]

I believe we've been all through this in the thread, but as a refresher:

There are a few main "clobber verses" that I know of for the non-affirming group to use:

I notice the use of 'clobber verses', which is the terminology used by LGBT activists who try to promote certain interpretations the Bible to advance their agenda.

• Leviticus 18:22 (which is referring to ritual purity)

What do you mean by 'ritual purity'? Are the other things in the passage merely a case of 'ritual impurity'? Would you say that it is okay for a man to have sex with his neighbor's wife, for a woman to have sex with her sons, or for a brother and sister to have sex? Those are in the same passage. Are they merely issues of 'ritual purity.' If two men can marry, why wouldn't a brother and sister be allowed to? Doesn't a brother and sister marrying make more sense than two men or two women?

Let's look at the passage.
Leviticus 18 (NKJV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
[/quote]

Is not having sex with animals just a matter of ritual purity? Do you think that is okay?

Pagans back then were perverts, and their religion was perverted. We think of religion as promoting morality, but for them, religion might involve sleeping with prostitutes, adultery, or offering a child in the fire to a false god. The verse about a man not lying with a man as one does with a woman doesn't specify that it has to happen in a pagan ceremony. You wouldn't allow for incest or beasiality as acceptable outside of a pagan ceremony, would you?


24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.


Here we see these acts, adultery, incest, men having sex with men, men or women having sex with animals, and child sacrifice, were sins, not just for Gentiles, but for the nations. The Old Testament gives us some idea of what fornication is, and this is a key passage.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders would gather to discuss whether the Gentiles should be commanded to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses. They were Jews who grew up not eating pork, resting on the Sabbath, and going to the temple. Jews outside of Christianity also wondered if Gentiles could be righteous without being circumcised and joining their covenant through with to relate to God. About a generation after Acts 15, Jewish leaders, including the son of Gamaliel decided that Gentiles could be righteous before God. They had a covenant with God through Noah after all, and came up with Noachide principles, including not chopping parts off of animals, not fornicating, etc. This is all associated with the covenant with Noah. These Jewish scholars considered what the Torah required of Gentiles. Genesis gave men flesh to eat, but not the blood. The Torah indicates that fornication is a sin for Gentiles (and Leviticus 18 is a clear example of that.)

Acts 15 shows us what the apostles and elders perceived the Spirit was saying to them about Gentile believers. They had discussed the issue. Then James presented scripture that showed that God was calling a people for himself from among the nations. This indicated that Gentiles did not have to relate to God through the law of Moses. Similar to the Jewish line of reasoning in the Talmud, we read,

Acts 15
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.
(NKJV)

Notice that, similar to Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism, the apostles wrote that Gentiles should abstain from things strangled and from blood. God had already required this of all mankind, Gentiles included, when He said in Genesis 9

3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
(NKJV)

And we see in Leviticus 18 that sexual immorality was a sin for Gentiles. They were expelled out of the land for it. Men having sex with men is included in sexual immorality. So is having sex with animals and various forms of incest.

• First Corinthians 6:9 and First Timothy 1:10 are where some translations use the word "homosexuals". According to that link:

'Homosexual' is a problematic translation since it has long been used to refer to people with certain inclinations. A lot of people use it to refer to people who perform same-sex acts, so usage of the term is ambiguous. But people having sex with the same gender is a sin, whether you use the word 'homosexual' to describe it or not.

Struggling with same sex attraction is not a sin, if one does not give in to it. Many Christian men struggle with the more normal issue of being attracted to women and keeping their thoughts pure. I'm sure there are Christian women who have similar struggles.

 

[tall73]

I believe we've been all through this in the thread, but as a refresher:

But in fact we have not, because when Link gave a very apt response on the Leviticus material you totally failed to address it. That is not going through all of it.

I decided to start a thread specifically to go through the details.

 

[tall73]

• Leviticus 18:22 (which is referring to ritual purity)

Here is a thread to discuss this first "clobber" text.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/focused-discussion-lev-18-22.7901140/

 

[tall73]

What do you mean by 'ritual purity'?

We will have to wait for her answer of course, but all sins in the Israelite covenant had a "ritual" element to them because God's dwelt in their midst, as Holy, and uncleanness dwelling in the camp was a ritual problem.

Hence the sanctuary was the place for sins to be dealt with to remove the uncleanness from the land, the camp, where God dwelt among them. On the other hand, some sins were so drastic that sacrificial provision was not made, rather the person paid with their own blood to rid the land of the blight.

Num 35:33 You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.
Num 35:34 You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the LORD dwell in the midst of the people of Israel."


Now the text uses ritual language such as "defile the land", "pollutes", "atonement", etc. However, folks would usually not say it is OK to murder on the basis that this is related to "ritual purity".

Beyond that of course, while the relationship with Israel was governed by the terms of the covenant, as you noted the prior inhabitants were also judged for these activities, because they were sinful activities apart from simply the Mosaic covenant.

 

[mkgal1]

to promote certain interpretations the Bible to advance their agenda.

And I notice the phrase "to advance their agenda". A phrase used by non-affirming groups in order to promote *their* agenda (and by "agenda" I presume you mean "stance"?) and simultaneously detract from the fact they even *have* an agenda. So?

 

[tall73]

And I notice the phrase "to advance their agenda". A phrase used by non-affirming groups in order to promote *their* agenda. So?

So let's leave out all discussion of agendas and just look at the text in question. I started a focused thread for just that purpose. No need to debate whether all homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles, or whether the supreme court was making a wise decision. We can just look at the text.

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1, I mentioned 'agenda' because you'd said something about not being convinced by outside influences. Btw, there is clearly an agenda, and having people provide explanations for Biblical texts the condemn homosexuality is a lifestyle. Most of us have some kind of agenda or another, whether it's to glorify God or something else.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

And I notice the phrase "to advance their agenda". A phrase used by non-affirming groups in order to promote *their* agenda (and by "agenda" I presume you mean "stance"?) and simultaneously detract from the fact they even *have* an agenda. So?

No, the gay agenda is a real thing.

 

[mkgal1]

Most of us have some kind of agenda or another, whether it's to glorify God or something else.

Some things aren't as mutually exclusive as you may believe.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'd say some gays (just as some christians) can be extreme and have one goal... one main agenda in life. To cause trouble. For example that couple that sued the cake owner for not making them a cake for their wedding because they were gay... yes alot of gays were mad about that. BUT... they also said they wouldn't have gone as far as that couple did. They say some gays are just out to cause trouble. Its the same when a crazy christian does something terrible and we as christians have to explain to everyone whos mad that not all christians are like that. West Boro Baptist for example.

 

[mkgal1]

Like Link said---everyone has an "agenda". What matters is how genuine and honest things are presented (and, you're right, extremists aren't genuine and honest).

The whole cake thing is just another example of the two sides of things. The bakery called that whole thing "Christian persecution"......but, from what I understand, they actually shared the couple's home address. That put the couple's basic security at risk---they received death threats and this all put them at risk of losing their foster children. Their lawsuit wasn't as frivolous as mainstream media as portrayed it to be (could that be b/c of media bias? I believe so).

Much like that whole ordeal--another business owner first stopped hosting *all* weddings (their claim was they "feared a lawsuit) and then closed their doors when there was no business (and claimed they were "forced to close" and were being "persecuted for their faith"). No one *forced* them to close their doors or forced them to stop hosting weddings---it was their choice to discriminate, and when that wasn't an option, they shut their business down. (That was the owners of Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa.)

 

[LinkH]

It does bother me to see Christians using this type of LGBT rhetoric. Quoting scripture to point out what sin is called 'bashing', as if speaking the word of God were a violent crime like hitting someone with a baseball bat. The verses are called 'clobber verses', which in some cases could just demonstrate a lack of respect for the word of God.

 

[mkgal1]

Quoting scripture to point out what sin is called 'bashing', as if speaking the word of God were a violent crime like hitting someone with a baseball bat. The verses are called 'clobber verses', which in some cases could just demonstrate a lack of respect for the word of God.

The way I see it---"clobber verses" is a very appropriate term. The Gospel is supposed to be Good News that frees people from the sin that binds them. Likewise.....in my view, using God's word in a way to pluck it out in order to use it *against* a person (that you don't like what they're doing) would be a lack of respect for the word of God.

Not only that--but to use it in a way that may forever exclude someone from seeing the true spirit of God by the misrepresentation of His intention & message may be one of the things that Christ meant when He said, "if any of you cause any of these little ones to stumble.....(paraphrased) it would be better if you had a millstone around your neck and tossed out to sea".