Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

liars_paradox

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2009
788
38
North Carolina
✟9,505.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
That's not what you said GC. You just said ONLY anal sex
is condemned in the OT... then the NT it's anything else.

The same sex sexual activity is abomination - the NT is simply
elaborating on it just as Jesus did with giving further detail
to Adultery.

It was not commonly practiced whatsoever (even in the USA in
the 70's it was looked down upon and even called a mental
illness by the medical board) - and Jesus gave the
marital covenant definition in Matt 19 that is the first marriage
example of Adam & Eve -
It was never common or accepted in OT Israel.

If you want to try to support homosexuality in the bible, good
luck the evidence is against you, and you can join the many
who here to try to do the same.
Jump on the bandwagon
:thumbsup:

Same exact thing goes for your argument as well. You can use the OT to argue against homosexual acts, but you must also acknowledge that WHERE in the OT is this mentioned and the words used to describe these acts.

The same word used to describe homosexual relations is used in reference to hair cuts, eating pork, etc. Something I'm certain many of you anti-gay marriage Christians have encountered. Yet, for all your bible quotes you manage to cite, you have yet to counter the "bandwagon's" argument.

That is, if one is to abstain from homosexual actions because of what Leviticus 18:22 has to say, then why is it that you don't follow the Laws in their entirety? That is, if one is not to commit the "abominable" (to'ebah) act homosexual relations then why do you eat things which are "unclean" (also to'ebah)?

You really could be right, however. But, if you don't provide an argument against that, then how can one be certain if you're right?

Either way, irregardless of if homosexuality is wrong or right, I think if one is to follow the word of God one should exercise love and tolerance.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Same exact thing goes for your argument as well. You can use the OT to argue against homosexual acts, but you must also acknowledge that WHERE in the OT is this mentioned and the words used to describe these acts.

The same word used to describe homosexual relations is used in reference to hair cuts, eating pork, etc. Something I'm certain many of you anti-gay marriage Christians have encountered. Yet, for all your bible quotes you manage to cite, you have yet to counter the "bandwagon's" argument.

That is, if one is to abstain from homosexual actions because of what Leviticus 18:22 has to say, then why is it that you don't follow the Laws in their entirety? That is, if one is not to commit the "abominable" (to'ebah) act homosexual relations then why do you eat things which are "unclean" (also to'ebah)?

You really could be right, however. But, if you don't provide an argument against that, then how can one be certain if you're right?

Either way, irregardless of if homosexuality is wrong or right, I think if one is to follow the word of God one should exercise love and tolerance.
There's a serious flaw in your analysis here tho.
But first, let me make an important note - today tolerance doesn't
mean to tolerate, "acceptance" is being forced instead.
I don't ACCEPT sin and I never will. Not even my own.
I don't HAVE to tolerate homosexuality - God sure doesn't.
I can be kind to people without tolerating sin - and for some,
I'm to use rebuke when the situation calls for it.

Back to the problem; How do you assume that it's "no big deal" to break ANY of that OT Law when it WAS their "righteousness".
They worshipped & served God differently in that era.

The only reason you find laws as no big deal today is becuz
(for starters, you most likely don't understand their signficance) -
GOD (Christ Jesus) changed SOME of the law thru His crucifixion.
So Christians serve in newness under Grace.
You may not think it's any big deal today to 'break the sabbath",
but God had a death penalty for it.
In THAT day, since Christ hadn't fulfilled the ceremonial/worship/
cleanliness Laws within Himself yet, it was a VERY serious offense.
It violated the "love law" of Loving God above all else.
Christians are still under that law today - but Christ changed HOW
He is worshipped and how believers serve.

So you may not see how crucial Sabbath was - but it was serious.
When God calls something abomination, we better pay attn.

You're simply downplaying a serious law that is changed today
due to the Grace Covenant God initiated. The flaw in is
your view of the Law in a postmodern era.

They were under a Theocracy and God was working to keep them
holy and righteous and from falling into depravity.... but as we
know, they kept violating His laws and falling into serious sin
to the point where God had to send judgment several times to
stop it.
The Messiah had to come out of that line - it HAD to be preserved
in order to accomplish His goal.

Please be careful about taking the OT laws lightly. Just becuz
a Christian is under grace, never means that God wasn't dead
serious about a law you may not see the significance of today.

One last thought,
Calling anything abomination automatically teaches that it's WRONG.
This isn't about 'levels of dislike'....
And the OT isn't the only place it's condemned; it's condemned
in several other areas as well.
It can't be any clearer.
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,835
4,093
57
✟114,628.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
The only reason you find laws as no big deal today is becuz
(for starters, you most likely don't understand their signficance) -
GOD (Christ Jesus) changed SOME of the law thru His crucifixion.
So Christians serve in newness under Grace.
You may not think it's any big deal today to 'break the sabbath",
but God had a death penalty for it.
In THAT day, since Christ hadn't fulfilled the ceremonial/worship/
cleanliness Laws within Himself yet, it was a VERY serious offense.
It violated the "love law" of Loving God above all else.
Christians are still under that law today - but Christ changed HOW
He is worshipped and how believers serve.

This is what I can't understand in these arguments.
Christ didn't just 'change some of the Law', He fulfilled every part of it. The OT doesn't distinguish different types of law, and neither did Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is what I can't understand in these arguments.
Christ didn't just 'change some of the Law', He fulfilled every part of it. The OT doesn't distinguish different types of law, and neither did Jesus.
Yes it does distinguish different types of law thru showing us what
discontinued and what continued in detail. (from what we see relayed
in the NT) -But let's back up.

First off, again, the fact that Jesus called it abomination is all we need to know that He was AGAINST IT. That cannot be ignored.
So whatever else we find about laws, it doesn't negate the fact
that God forbid homosexuality.

Now, what is "fulfilled"? Christ obeyed ALL the Law in order to PAY
for sin and cancel it out (only for the Saved).
His fulfillment doesn't END our duty to obey His commands; as if
all the commands were "fulfilled" by Jesus, so we no longer have
anything we need to do.
We aren't LAWLESS. Paul spent chapters on antinomianism and
why it's wrong.

What did Jesus put us under? The 2 laws of love FOUND IN THE
TORAH. Romans 13 tells us that the moral laws [found in the OT]
are what the law, "love neighbor as yourself" hinges on.

What does that mean to us? That we are violating God's moral
law of love to murder another person becuz murder is not love.
The same goes for all sexual sins, lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

How did Jesus fulfill the law/command of loving God above all else?
He BECAME our righteousness and provided the Blood sacrifice
for all souls would accept Him.
What does that mean?
Now, animal sacrificing has been dismantled. Those who accept
Christ HAVE blood atonement for their sin.
But who doesn't have that atonement over them? THE LOST.
They rejected the only sacrifice for their sin, which means they
stand guilty and responsible to pay for their own sin.
Sin Christ hasn't covered to make them righteous.

So the law is BOTH in full effect, yet CHANGED/altered by Christ's
work on the cross at the same time.

Those in Christ are found righteous and atoned for, those who refuse
Him, are found guilty without blood atonement and are unrighteous.

So Christ fulfilled the law, but it doesn't change the fact that one
MUST have atonement for their sin.

Just saying "Jesus fulfilled it for us" isn't covering the details of
what still remains in tact and what is changed.
Just becuz Jesus fulfilled it, doesn't mean we can fornicate ourselves
silly - or cheat & steal, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,835
4,093
57
✟114,628.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Just saying "Jesus fulfilled it for us" isn't covering the details of
what still remains in tact and what is changed.
Just becuz Jesus fulfilled it, doesn't mean we can fornicate ourselves
silly - or cheat & steal, etc.

..or eat shellfish...
.. or wear clothes with mixed fibres...

I'm not saying that we are free to sin.. but trying to work out how you decide which laws 'remain intact' and which are done away with.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
..or eat shellfish...
.. or wear clothes with mixed fibres...

I'm not saying that we are free to sin.. but trying to work out how you decide which laws 'remain intact' and which are done away with.
This was what I was pointing out,
What did those laws consist of? CLEANLINESS.

All the ceremonial rituals they did : the feast laws, the dietary
laws, the cleansing/purification rituals-laws, the sacrificial system:

ALL MADE THEM RIGHTEOUS before God.
What was Jesus' mission? To SAVE US/ atone for our sin so that
we are made clean and righteous thru HIM instead of doing
works.
Remember? The law is all about works, Grace is all about Christ's
works for us.

All the shellfish/dietary laws were what kept them spiritually
clean before God.
Those in Christ today (under grace), now have GOD HIMSELF
who makes Christians clean.

This is why can make distinctions in what changed of the law
and what remains.
Christ REPLACED the old system of worship and righteousness/cleanliness by BEING IT FOR US.
But Christ didn't replace the moral commands becuz they are
what constitute LOVE OF NEIGHBOR as self.

If you love another, you do no harm to them; so that means you
don't violate His moral commands.
If you love your child, you don't beat them up, you don't
kill them, you don't have incest with them, you don't give them
inappropriate content, etc. etc.

Those moral commands are how we act towards others and they are
still in tact.
The worship/ritual/cleanliness laws are replaced by Jesus directly.

However, again, the LOST don't have Him as their righteousness
or sin covered, and by law, they MUST have atonement for sin
or else be responsible to pay their own sin debt.

Again the law is in full tact, yet CHANGED FOR BELIEVERS who
now serve in newness, yet aren't lawless.

Read Romans 13, it is very insightful:
8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

How can Jesus "fulfill" that for us so that we
can stop being loving to others yet be under the
law of love?
 
Upvote 0

liars_paradox

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2009
788
38
North Carolina
✟9,505.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
As I have said, American slavery was backed up with Scripture.
I disagree. Granted that in the book of Leviticus God established laws for the Hebrews which mandated how one was to treat his or her slave, but that isn't to say that the bible actually supported it.
 
Upvote 0

Tissue

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2004
2,686
114
35
Houghton, New York
Visit site
✟18,406.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I disagree. Granted that in the book of Leviticus God established laws for the Hebrews which mandated how one was to treat his or her slave, but that isn't to say that the bible actually supported it.

Of course it doesn't. But if you dig up a bit of history, you'll find that the Bible was quoted extensively in America on both sides of the slavery issue.

I'm simply pointing out that the phrase 'backed up with Scripture', when applied to something, does not at all imply that it is correct or right or good.
 
Upvote 0

KingCrimson250

IS A HOMEBOY
Apr 10, 2009
1,799
210
✟18,395.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. Granted that in the book of Leviticus God established laws for the Hebrews which mandated how one was to treat his or her slave, but that isn't to say that the bible actually supported it.

That's not the point though. It's not a matter of whether or not the Bible actually supports it, it's a matter of the Bible being used to support it regardless, you see?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tissue
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

liars_paradox

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2009
788
38
North Carolina
✟9,505.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
There's a serious flaw in your analysis here tho.
But first, let me make an important note - today tolerance doesn't
mean to tolerate, "acceptance" is being forced instead.
I don't ACCEPT sin and I never will. Not even my own.
I don't HAVE to tolerate homosexuality - God sure doesn't.
I can be kind to people without tolerating sin - and for some,
I'm to use rebuke when the situation calls for it.

Back to the problem; How do you assume that it's "no big deal" to break ANY of that OT Law when it WAS their "righteousness".
They worshipped & served God differently in that era.

The only reason you find laws as no big deal today is becuz
(for starters, you most likely don't understand their signficance) -
GOD (Christ Jesus) changed SOME of the law thru His crucifixion.
So Christians serve in newness under Grace.
You may not think it's any big deal today to 'break the sabbath",
but God had a death penalty for it.
In THAT day, since Christ hadn't fulfilled the ceremonial/worship/
cleanliness Laws within Himself yet, it was a VERY serious offense.
It violated the "love law" of Loving God above all else.
Christians are still under that law today - but Christ changed HOW
He is worshipped and how believers serve.

So you may not see how crucial Sabbath was - but it was serious.
When God calls something abomination, we better pay attn.

You're simply downplaying a serious law that is changed today
due to the Grace Covenant God initiated. The flaw in is
your view of the Law in a postmodern era.

They were under a Theocracy and God was working to keep them
holy and righteous and from falling into depravity.... but as we
know, they kept violating His laws and falling into serious sin
to the point where God had to send judgment several times to
stop it.
The Messiah had to come out of that line - it HAD to be preserved
in order to accomplish His goal.

Please be careful about taking the OT laws lightly. Just becuz
a Christian is under grace, never means that God wasn't dead
serious about a law you may not see the significance of today.

One last thought,
Calling anything abomination automatically teaches that it's WRONG.
This isn't about 'levels of dislike'....

And the OT isn't the only place it's condemned; it's condemned
in several other areas as well.
It can't be any clearer.

I agree full-heartidly. But, the reason why I disagree with anti-gay rights Christians is that it doesn't seem that they actually follow this view eventhough they might believe it. There isn't any level of dislike God has for what He forbids in the Tanakh (Jewish word for OT), it seems that all of these forbidden things are toebah in the eyes of the Lord.

However, there are over six-hundred laws. No one can follow these laws in their entirety, not even Jews which is why modern Judaism has an "Oral Torah" which dictates how to interpret these laws. One thing God forbids His people to do is to use any system of measure other than the Hebrew system of measure. Other systems, like the American Standard and the Metric are "dishonest" (Leviticus 19:35-36). Yet, not using these standards makes life difficult in many aspects of life and make it nearly impossible to function in a society which doesn't have these system of measure already in place.

Yet, we Christians do have the crucifixion, so some of these laws don't have to be followed. Yet, the problem is in determining which of the 600+ laws do we no longer have to follow. Which ones were deemed by the NT as no longer necessary? Can you find at least six-hundred specific incidents in which the NT says that a law was no longer necessary due to the crucifixion of Christ?

The thing is, however, the NT doesn't actually go through all of the Laws of the Israelites and lay-out for us which are still necessary to follow and which aren't. Instead, with the exception of a few incidents, the NT gives only a general idea about how one is to obey the Law of the Lord.

It's not that these Laws were "wrong" and that Jesus' death made these obsolete, as when accussed of trying to destroy the Law Jesus had denied this. However, Paul states in the book of Romans how we "spiritual Jews" were to follow these Laws.

First he argues how no one is able to uphold off these Laws eventhough commanded His followers to do so. So, since we humans are inevitiably going to fail God's high standards, then we have no right to judge others (Romans 2:1, Romans 3:19-20).

Yet, if none of us are able to follow the laws in their entirety, then do we just simply do away with them? No, but Paul does sum up nicely how we are to follow the context of the Laws handed down from God to His people in Romans 13:8-10. First off, the Ten Commandments are important and hold higher precedence than laws which regarded cleanliness and ritual practices. But, obeying the ten commandments and avoiding acts which God called "Zimah" such as adultery or murder, are easily summed with only one rule which is "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law."
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. Granted that in the book of Leviticus God established laws for the Hebrews which mandated how one was to treat his or her slave, but that isn't to say that the bible actually supported it.
And yet the prominent southern theologians of their day, in many cases the twice-great-grandfathers of the very ones claiming Scripture to oppress gays, claimed Scripture to support slavery.

This page, written by Mark Knoll, a history professor at Wheaton College (an evangelical school) outlines a public debate on the Christian position on slavery which took place in Cincinnati in October 1845. It reads a lot like one of our CF threads on homosexuality. Jonathan Blanchard, championing abolition, was a lot like our own Texas Lynn, referencing history, compassion, progression in the church's attitudes, etc. But not quoting very much Scripture. He quoted Uncle Tom's Cabin more than the Bible

His opponent, Nathan Rice, on the other hand, had a Bible verse to back up every statement he made, to support every proposal.

His spiritual grandsons today agree that slavery is wrong. They try to explain away the very verses once used to champion American slavery by claiming that slavery itself was different in the Bible. And then they wonder why they have so much trouble convincing the world that their attitude toward gays is Biblical, when we already know that today's gays are different from Biblical rapists and orgiastic cultists.
 
Upvote 0

liars_paradox

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2009
788
38
North Carolina
✟9,505.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
..or eat shellfish...
.. or wear clothes with mixed fibres...

I'm not saying that we are free to sin.. but trying to work out how you decide which laws 'remain intact' and which are done away with.
I know that this was directed to Nadiine, but as I have mentioned earlier the laws are fulfilled by loving your fellow person as you would yourself. It's not that these laws were arbitrarily put in place by God, we all of the health risks of eating the flesh of these "Toebah" (unclean or abominable) animals if not cooked properly, but should this be a bigger concern to me than someone who rapes or murders? It doesn't seem like that God would show any favoritism to a thief over someone who may have broke Sabbath to save another's life.

Paul tells us not to put a stumbling block into our brother's way by passing judgment on one another, for each of us will have to give our own account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12-13) . What another person does isn't my concern so long as they're not hurting others, because being concerned about what they do is not acting out of love (Romans 14:15) which is a direct violation of the word of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OllieFranz
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I know that this was directed to Nadiine, but as I have mentioned earlier the laws are fulfilled by loving your fellow person as you would yourself. It's not that these laws were arbitrarily put in place by God, we all of the health risks of eating the flesh of these "Toebah" (unclean or abominable) animals if not cooked properly, but should this be a bigger concern to me than someone who rapes or murders? It doesn't seem like that God would show any favoritism to a thief over someone who may have broke Sabbath to save another's life.

Paul tells us not to put a stumbling block into our brother's way by passing judgment on one another, for each of us will have to give our own account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12-13) . What another person does isn't my concern so long as they're not hurting others, because being concerned about what they do is not acting out of love (Romans 14:15) which is a direct violation of the word of God.

QFT:thumbsup:

It's not quite how I would have phrased it, but it says much the same thing as what I have been saying
 
Upvote 0

KingCrimson250

IS A HOMEBOY
Apr 10, 2009
1,799
210
✟18,395.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I agree full-heartidly. But, the reason why I disagree with anti-gay rights Christians is that it doesn't seem that they actually follow this view eventhough they might believe it. There isn't any level of dislike God has for what He forbids in the Tanakh (Jewish word for OT), it seems that all of these forbidden things are toebah in the eyes of the Lord.

However, there are over six-hundred laws. No one can follow these laws in their entirety, not even Jews which is why modern Judaism has an "Oral Torah" which dictates how to interpret these laws. One thing God forbids His people to do is to use any system of measure other than the Hebrew system of measure. Other systems, like the American Standard and the Metric are "dishonest" (Leviticus 19:35-36). Yet, not using these standards makes life difficult in many aspects of life and make it nearly impossible to function in a society which doesn't have these system of measure already in place.

Yet, we Christians do have the crucifixion, so some of these laws don't have to be followed. Yet, the problem is in determining which of the 600+ laws do we no longer have to follow. Which ones were deemed by the NT as no longer necessary? Can you find at least six-hundred specific incidents in which the NT says that a law was no longer necessary due to the crucifixion of Christ?

The thing is, however, the NT doesn't actually go through all of the Laws of the Israelites and lay-out for us which are still necessary to follow and which aren't. Instead, with the exception of a few incidents, the NT gives only a general idea about how one is to obey the Law of the Lord.

It's not that these Laws were "wrong" and that Jesus' death made these obsolete, as when accussed of trying to destroy the Law Jesus had denied this. However, Paul states in the book of Romans how we "spiritual Jews" were to follow these Laws.

First he argues how no one is able to uphold off these Laws eventhough commanded His followers to do so. So, since we humans are inevitiably going to fail God's high standards, then we have no right to judge others (Romans 2:1, Romans 3:19-20).

Yet, if none of us are able to follow the laws in their entirety, then do we just simply do away with them? No, but Paul does sum up nicely how we are to follow the context of the Laws handed down from God to His people in Romans 13:8-10. First off, the Ten Commandments are important and hold higher precedence than laws which regarded cleanliness and ritual practices. But, obeying the ten commandments and avoiding acts which God called "Zimah" such as adultery or murder, are easily summed with only one rule which is "'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law."

Well it isn't so much about going through the laws and picking and choosing whichever ones we still feel are relevant today, rater it's more about going through the laws and trying to understand their purpose. We are no longer bound by the Law, however it still exists and is still relevant. As a result, we need to look at why the laws say what they do, and thus understand what God's purpose was in giving the law to Israel. If the best way to fulfill this purpose is by maintaining the law itself, then the law should be upheld. So in other words, we aren't looking for the law so much as we are looking for the theological principle behind it.

Sometimes this principle will cause the law to apply no longer (for example, the laws of the guilt offerings - the principle of the sacrifice is still in place, however it has been accomplished through Christ, rather than through animal blood\). Other times, it will cause the law to be ever more restrictive (the examples Christ uses of equating anger with murder and looking at a woman lustfully with adultery).

As you say, love is the fulfillment of the Law. That being said, the Law is still very powerful as we can look back at it and learn a lot about God as we look through it and see what He commanded His people to do. For example, a lot of the commandments have to do with setting apart His nation from everyone else, and showing that theologically Israel was completely different from anyone else at the time, and they had a very unique way of "doing religion." This helps to reinforce and expound upon the NT principle of being "in the world but not of it."

Of course, this is where the debate comes in as far as homosexuality is concerned. Leviticus 18 is essentially the outlining of what is considered sinful sexually. At the end of the chapter, it is made clear that these laws are important to follow because not only will they keep the Israelites from sin, but they will set the Israelites apart from the rest of the world. The question is: Now that God's people are scattered and there is no one, specific country or nation that is His (hate to break it to you, America), do these laws still apply? Is the principle behind them the purity of sexuality, or the setting apart of God's people? Does it make a difference either way? Those are the questions that people are grappling with to try and come to grips with whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally Posted by liars_paradox
I know that this was directed to Nadiine, but as I have mentioned earlier the laws are fulfilled by loving your fellow person as you would yourself.
Who defines "Love"? You?
Me?

Terrorists? KKK? Homosexuals? Liberals? Conservatives?

GOD defines what love is, becuz He is Love and the
Creator, and the moral lawgiver.

What you see happening here is you read "love", and then
you define what love is according to your moral
compass, the terrorist define love by their moral compass,
Atheists define love by their moral compass, etc.

Since God is Creator and the only righteous one, then ONLY GOD is capable of telling us what genuine love is and isn't.

Man wants to include "whoever I sleep with" or "whoever
I have interest in" as what love is. God says No to that.

Redefining His commands and design aren't going to change
anything for us. He's giving us a choice to abide by
His rules, or go our own way. Rest assured, when the
time comes that God is done extending time to us, we'll
all stand at His throne and held accountable to HIS
laws & standards.
Not our own.

By the way, Romans 13 spells out that several OT commands
(incl. the 2 laws of love) are still valid. His Moral laws continue
in effect.

 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As you say, love is the fulfillment of the Law. That being said, the Law is still very powerful as we can look back at it and learn a lot about God as we look through it and see what He commanded His people to do. For example, a lot of the commandments have to do with setting apart His nation from everyone else, and showing that theologically Israel was completely different from anyone else at the time, and they had a very unique way of "doing religion." This helps to reinforce and expound upon the NT principle of being "in the world but not of it."
The moral law encompasses fulfillment of the law of Loving neighbor.
Romans 13 gives us moral commands that we must continue (from
the OT) - and other passages in the NT spell out moral sin also so that we aren't left to guess what's ok and what isn't.

Of course, this is where the debate comes in as far as homosexuality is concerned. Leviticus 18 is essentially the outlining of what is considered sinful sexually. At the end of the chapter, it is made clear that these laws are important to follow because not only will they keep the Israelites from sin, but they will set the Israelites apart from the rest of the world. The question is: Now that God's people are scattered and there is no one, specific country or nation that is His (hate to break it to you, America), do these laws still apply? Is the principle behind them the purity of sexuality, or the setting apart of God's people? Does it make a difference either way? Those are the questions that people are grappling with to try and come to grips with whether homosexuality is a sin or not.
There is little to grapple with tho becuz if moral laws defined what
Love of neighbor was, since when does love change?

I disagree that sexual sins were forbidden 'only because it set them
apart from pagans'...
it's wrong becuz it's not love of another (it is using them for pleasure
or personal need). Romans 13 says that love fulfills the law.
It's not to be set apart from others as it is showing what God calls love
and demands that we exercise that with others.

And to anyone here; if it's morally wrong for inappropriate behavior with animals and incest in the OT, what exactly changes it to LOVING in the NT grace era? :scratch:
I apply the same to homosexuality which had a death penalty attached
to it.
 
Upvote 0

KingCrimson250

IS A HOMEBOY
Apr 10, 2009
1,799
210
✟18,395.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And to anyone here; if it's morally wrong for inappropriate behavior with animals and incest in the OT, what exactly changes it to LOVING in the NT grace era? :scratch:
I apply the same to homosexuality which had a death penalty attached
to it.

Absolutely. To me, and apparently to you as well, Leviticus 18 seems to be a package deal. I don't particularly see any real reason why homosexuality would suddenly become okay but incest and inappropriate behavior with animals would remain taboo. The way the passage is makes it pretty clear that they are regarded in the same way as God, I think.

I am not homophobic, I'm not using the Bible as some way to oppress homosexuality, that's just absurd. In fact if the Bible was okay with it that would make life a lot easier, for everyone. Less disputes. But honestly, I cannot make the argument that the Bible is in favour of homosexuality. I just don't see it in there.
 
Upvote 0

Nadiine

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2006
52,800
48,336
Obama: 53% deserve him ;)
✟292,219.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Absolutely. To me, and apparently to you as well, Leviticus 18 seems to be a package deal. I don't particularly see any real reason why homosexuality would suddenly become okay but incest and inappropriate behavior with animals would remain taboo. The way the passage is makes it pretty clear that they are regarded in the same way as God, I think.

I am not homophobic, I'm not using the Bible as some way to oppress homosexuality, that's just absurd. In fact if the Bible was okay with it that would make life a lot easier, for everyone. Less disputes. But honestly, I cannot make the argument that the Bible is in favour of homosexuality. I just don't see it in there.
Agree. It's not in there - it not only condemns it in both Testaments,
it gives zero support or instruction for any gay unions (lacking all
gay role models in the NT church if it's supposedly changed morality)

In fact, inappropriate behavior with animals is only mentioned the 1 time in the entire bible -
yet they willingly agree that's still sinful. :scratch:
So they pick the one with multiple condemnations in both Testaments
to claim a moral change? Sorry but it makes no sense to me
even in a logical sense. It's illogical esp. in a day when people
don't hold anything to be true in the Bible unless it's repeated
100 times over with every single Greek/Hebrew & English word
spelling it out in every way imaginable.

& if they do see something condemned.... well, they just attack
the Bible itself as not being God's word, error filled or tampered
with when it doesn't suit their agenda.

So be it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟14,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Call it splitting hairs - but um...I dont see how you can use inappropriate behavior with animals as an example. Not saying that you think its the same thing...just a bit...you know...eesh.

inappropriate behavior with animals is easily seen as a sin cos its with a non consenting species, we dont do interspecies.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.