1 Corinthians 6:9

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Halohope,

Thats great! I'll do vice-versa. We can both pray for the other!

 

[WashedBytheSon]

I agree completely, with one change We are not called to be like Christ, but to become like Christ.

This side of death (or the Rapture) we still have our Sin Nature to deal with and we cannot be perfect. Still. we should strive as much as possible, relying on God's grace and on promises like 1 Cor 10:13. There is no excuse not to strive.



The Law exists for two purposes: to teach us virtue and character, and to teach us the need for God's grace.
When we have learned those lessons, we have "graduated." We have learned the virtues that we need to resist the vices, which are our Sin Nature. Paul calls these virtues "the fruit of the Spirit." And we have accepted through God's grace, additional spiritual virtues -- virtues which we cannot learn or earn on our own -- that we need to not just resist, but to overcome the vices. Paul calls these unearned virtues the Armor of God.

When we "graduate," we are no longer under the law, but that does not mean we are free to indulge our vices, our old Sin Nature. It means that we are to obey our higher nature, the new nature growing within us due to the fruit of the Spirit and the Armor of God.





What I get out of this paragraph is that you are (again) claiming that Levitius 20:13 is not part of the Holiness Code.

I realize that we are not going to agree on whether Leviticus 20:13 is part of the Holiness Code or part of the moral code. I agree that many things that are associated with homosexual practices are immoral. They are immoral when they are associated with heterosexual practices also. Adultery, fornication, incest and "fertility rites." Also rape, child molestation etc. But these practices are not a part of homosexual love any more than they are a part of heterosexual love.



Neither is there any evidence that homosexuality is condemned as a moral sin. It is prohibited by the Holiness Code, but the Holiness Code has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer binding.



There is no evidence in Scripture to support your claim, either. And there are many who do see evidence of the Bible condoning committed same-sex relationships. These people cite David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, Elijah and Elisha, and Jehu and Jehonadab. Personally, I am not certain how much the "queer reading" is not reading more than is there. But it does leave open enough doubt in my mind that I can't say that there is absolutely no acceptance of homosexual relationships.

I don't really feel like debating about this anymore because I don't think we will agree on it. From scripture it is clear to me that homosexuality is wrong. I would not disagree with homosexuality if I believed it wasn't a sin according to God. I do not make scripture out to say what I want it to say just so I can go on believing that whatever wrong I am doing is really not wrong.

It is speculation and speculation only that any of those people were homosexuals, and it also comes from purposeful misinterpretation. And by your argument, since you think homosexuality being wrong is only under the 'holiness code' they all would have been put to death for that sin.

 

[GwynApNudd]

It is speculation and speculation only that any of those people were homosexuals, and it also comes from purposeful misinterpretation. And by your argument, since you think homosexuality being wrong is only under the 'holiness code' they all would have been put to death for that sin.

Yes, they could have been stoned for violating the holiness code. Whether it was for "man-lying" (mishkav zakur), or for working on the Sabbath, or for approaching too closely to a holy place or object without being a Cohen who has been ritually prepared.

[BIBLE]Exodus 31:14-15[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Exodus 19:12[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Numbers 1:51[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Numbers 18:7[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]Leviticus 16:1[/BIBLE]
[BIBLE]2 Samuel 6:3-8[/BIBLE]

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Yes, they could have been stoned for violating the holiness code. Whether it was for "man-lying" (mishkav zakur), or for working on the Sabbath, or for approaching too closely to a holy place or object without being a Cohen who has been ritually prepared.

[bible]Exodus 31:14-15[/bible]

[bible]Exodus 19:12[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 1:51[/bible]
[bible]Numbers 18:7[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 16:1[/bible]
[bible]2 Samuel 6:3-8[/bible]

They would have been stoned. Execution was not optional.

 

[GwynApNudd]

They would have had to have been convicted first. The jurisprudence of the Children of Israel protected many rights of the accused.

However, my point was that the death penalty could be applied to violations of the holiness code as well as to violations of moral law. We can't use the death penalty to "prove" that "man-lying" was not part of the holiness code. Especially when the Bible specifically says that it was.