Homosexuality

[davedjy]

It wasn't meant to be, it was meant to explain that I recognize the need for change, in myself, and for him to increase, and me to decrease.

Yes, I recognize changes I need to make in myself...this isn't one of them though!

 

[VCViking]

I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in homosexuality and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.

Actually I can. The enemy comes as an angel of light and ears will be tickled.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in homosexuality and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.

Actually I can. The enemy comes as an angel of light and ears will be tickled.

I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in discrimination and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If I offended anyone with the animal comment it was not my intent, and I apologize. However, it should be noted that I didnt compare it to 2 consenting male adults...the Bible did, in verses back to back. I just stated what it said. These verses are back to back in the same chapter.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
Leviticus 18:22-23

Leviticus also condemns the eating of shellfish, shaving, hair cutting, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, and attending church while wearing glasses. Leviticus also says slavery and killing your own child are acceptable things.

 

[davedjy]

Leviticus also condemns the eating of shellfish, shaving, hair cutting, wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics, and attending church while wearing glasses. Leviticus also says slavery and killing your own child are acceptable things.

Yes, let it be known that if you are wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...you are LIVING IN SIN according to Leviticus! It is the same abomination (Tow'ebah=ritual unclean).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in homosexuality and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.

I cannot fathom how Christians twist scripture to condone women in pants of mixed fibre who eat shellfish!

 

[StTherese]

I cannot fathom how Christians can condone and participate in discrimination and twist Scripture to fit their sinful desires.

.....or claim to be something they obviously are not.

 

[BAFRIEND]

What a horrible thread. I am going to stick to the prayer threads. Yuck.

 

[david_x]

What a horrible thread. I am going to stick to the prayer threads. Yuck.

Welcome to life.

 

[davedjy]

What a horrible thread. I am going to stick to the prayer threads. Yuck.

what is yuck? homosexuality or the condemning of such?

 

[david_x]

I think he meant the wat people are treating each other.

 

[WalkingforHim]

830 replies and it's like we neve left page one. A sad waste of time.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Yes, let it be known that if you are wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...you are LIVING IN SIN according to Leviticus! It is the same abomination (Tow'ebah=ritual unclean).

Hey Dave,
Thought maybe you missed this post from another thread.

Lev 19:19
19Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.


John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:
thou shall not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; or "cause [them] to gender" {e} for cattle do not usually of themselves gender with a diverse kind, unless directed and solicited to it, as a male of one kind with a female of another; for instance, an horse with a she ass, or an he ass with a mare, and even creatures that were like one another, yet of different kinds, were not to mix together; as a wolf and a dog, a hound and a fox, goats and roebucks, goats and sheep, a horse and a mule, a mule and an ass, an ass and a wild ass; for though they are like one another, they are of different kinds {f}: a creature thus gendered was not forbidden to be used, as a mule; and if a clean creature and gendered of clean ones, though of a different kind, it might be eaten, as Maimonides {g} affirms; for not the creature gendered was unlawful for use, but the act of causing to gender is what is forbidden: the design was to preserve the order of beings, and the nature of creatures as they were at the first creation; that there might be no change among them, or anything taken from or added to what God had made; not to separate what God had joined, or join what God had separated, which to do must reflect upon his wisdom; as also, that men and women, as Philo {h} observes, might abstain from unlawful converse, from unnatural lusts and mixtures;


I have to thank you EnemyPartyII, if you hadn't kept riding that very dead horse of shellfish and mixed clothes, I wouldn't have went back and studied it more.

In Lev 19:19, we see how cattle are not to be allow to gender with diverse kind. The design was to preserve the order of beings, and the nature of creatures as they were at the first creation; that there might be no change among them, or anything taken from or added to what God had made; not to separate what God had joined, or join what God had separated, which to do must reflect upon his wisdom; as also, that men and women, as Philo {h} observes, might abstain from unlawful converse, from unnatural lusts and mixtures;

Kind of fits in with what we are talking about, since cattle was to be preserved in the order of the first creation, don't you think God would even want man and woman to be the same as when first created?

As we see in the last part of verse 19 they are talking about the mixed fabrics that keep being brought up. We also see why it was wrong.

Lev 19:19(last part)
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee; for, as Josephus {l} says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah {m} agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen;

Now we can see how some parts of Chapter 19 go along with Chapter 18, and we see the parts that don't.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=32481821#post32481821
​

 

[intricatic]

My quick rehash of the shellfish debacle.
Link to more expanded version.

4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 8"I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

(Acts 11)

Food was antitypal of gentile nations.

4 The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"
(Numbers 11)

It was a correlation to stand to testify to Israel about consuming the cultures of other lands in replacement of that which God had given them. When the time came to establish the universality of God's sovereignty, the cultures were to be integrated into the Church and food was no longer seen as an abomination as the promises were fulfilled under the old covenant.

In other words, if that food, in Acts 11, represented the Gentile nations, we can say this was only symbolic in the dream itself, but if you think about the logical extension of that - when gentile believers were added to the Church, would they be restricted from eating the foods which were symbolic for themselves? That would essentially amount to declaring themselves unclean gentiles! God did say "Do not call unclean what I have made clean." Thus, I must conclude that the dietary restrictions were prophetic towards the day when the gentiles would be permitted into the universally sovereign marriage between God and His Church.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Saved and happy, I don't doubt that there is a logical reason for saying that clothes of mixed fibre were abomination way back when, the POINT, is that we no longer consider it so NOW!

$10 says you are wearing a poly-cotton mix this very moment.

So... IF wearing mixed fibre is OK now, why not homosexuality?

Why do you get to pick and choose the bits of Leviticus you want to follow, but I don't?

 

[intricatic]

Saved and happy, I don't doubt that there is a logical reason for saying that clothes of mixed fibre were abomination way back when, the POINT, is that we no longer consider it so NOW!

$10 says you are wearing a poly-cotton mix this very moment.

So... IF wearing mixed fibre is OK now, why not homosexuality?

Why do you get to pick and choose the bits of Leviticus you want to follow, but I don't?

Aren't we all set apart by the Holy Spirit in Christ? Wasn't that the other side to the idea of the Levite priests?

Lev 19:19(last part)
neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee; for, as Josephus {l} says, none but the priests were allowed to wear such a garment, and with which the Misnah {m} agrees; in which it is asserted, that the priests have no other clothing to minister in, in the sanctuary, but of woollen and linen;

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Aren't we all set apart by the Holy Spirit in Christ? Wasn't that the other side to the idea of the Levite priests?

It always struck me as odd, from reading the other post regarding slavery. Some christians will go to great lengths to massage the scripture to explain away why Slavery was deemed acceptable, but when it comes to Gay people they are quite Dogmatiic as to the authenticity and relevance of a few quotes made over 2000 years ago. It just does not sit right with me.

 

[intricatic]

It always struck me as odd, from reading the other post regarding slavery. Some christians will go to great lengths to massage the scripture to explain away why Slavery was deemed acceptable, but when it comes to Gay people they are quite Dogmatiic as to the authenticity and relevance of a few quotes made over 2000 years ago. It just does not sit right with me.

All parties involved miss the point when debating the idea of slavery. The necessity of sin in homoeroticism goes right to the heart of what the marital covenant (and Christ's sacrifice on the cross as an indirect result) itself implies.

 

[david_x]

So... IF wearing mixed fibre is OK now, why not homosexuality?

Oh why not son and mother marriges at the same time!!!
did you read the passages directly around it?
That is not a logical debate.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

All parties involved miss the point when debating the idea of slavery. The necessity of sin in homoeroticism goes right to the heart of what the marital covenant (and Christ's sacrifice on the cross as an indirect result) itself implies.

Why the use of the word Homoerotic?