Can somebody clear this up for me?

[Danyc]

I'm not for or against gays.

Right now I just don't know if it's wrong or it's fine for people to do this according to the Bible.

My original thought was this: Was not homosexuality condemned in the Laws of Moses, in the OT? I have also read that Jesus freed us from these Laws under his new covenant; After all, we don't have to stay away from pork or shellfish anymore, which the OT also condemns. I was under the impression that most of these laws were made solely for the health of his people; I can understand the certain foods thing and stuff, because some meats have been proved to be worse for you than others, like pork. But then there's the mixed fabrics law, which people obviously don't follow anymore (and it didn't even make any sense to begin with anyways), so I don't know what that is all about.

So, does that means the law concerning homosexuality is gone as well?

I want some honest answers on this, taken from scripture, and not from opinion, please.

 

[CaDan]

Read the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 and see how you respond to it.

 

[HisKid1973]

Read Romans 1 just for one and give a comment on that.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not for or against gays.

Right now I just don't know if it's wrong or it's fine for people to do this according to the Bible.

My original thought was this: Was not homosexuality condemned in the Laws of Moses, in the OT? I have also read that Jesus freed us from these Laws under his new covenant; After all, we don't have to stay away from pork or shellfish anymore, which the OT also condemns. I was under the impression that most of these laws were made solely for the health of his people; I can understand the certain foods thing and stuff, because some meats have been proved to be worse for you than others, like pork. But then there's the mixed fabrics law, which people obviously don't follow anymore (and it didn't even make any sense to begin with anyways), so I don't know what that is all about.

So, does that means the law concerning homosexuality is gone as well?

I want some honest answers on this, taken from scripture, and not from opinion, please.

the “law” against homosexuality never existed.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

the “law” against homosexuality never existed.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

So you can't rape a man in the same way you rape a woman, or are we talking inside of marriage? Does this allow gay sex but forbid gay marriages?

 

[BreadAlone]

I'm not for or against gays.

Right now I just don't know if it's wrong or it's fine for people to do this according to the Bible.

My original thought was this: Was not homosexuality condemned in the Laws of Moses, in the OT? I have also read that Jesus freed us from these Laws under his new covenant; After all, we don't have to stay away from pork or shellfish anymore, which the OT also condemns. I was under the impression that most of these laws were made solely for the health of his people; I can understand the certain foods thing and stuff, because some meats have been proved to be worse for you than others, like pork. But then there's the mixed fabrics law, which people obviously don't follow anymore (and it didn't even make any sense to begin with anyways), so I don't know what that is all about.

So, does that means the law concerning homosexuality is gone as well?

I want some honest answers on this, taken from scripture, and not from opinion, please.

Jesus freed us from sin..the OT laws are still fully applicable to everyone..and we keep them perfectly in God's eyes because of what Jesus has done. Jesus kept the law because we can't..now we keep the law out of love for him. The reason we don't do all the ceremonial stuff in the OT is because there are distinctions in OT law..there are ceremonial laws which were foreshadowings of Christ which need not be done anylonger because we have the real deal (your shellfish thing would fall into this category), there are Civil laws which we do follow, just not the one's in the OT because we aren't Isrealites, we follow civil laws like obeying the speed limmit..and then there are moral laws, like not committing acts of homosexuality..which we still adhere to because of and for Christ today. Homosexuality is spoken against in the NT also..though people on here would probably try to convince you that it's "translated wrong" or something foolish like that..

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

the “law” against homosexuality never existed.

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

i thought the leviticus passages were passed off as ritual impurity? so now it is same-sex rape? Is it same-sex rape in front of a false idol, or what?

 

[CaDan]

Jesus freed us from sin..the OT laws are still fully applicable to everyone..and we keep them perfectly in God's eyes because of what Jesus has done. Jesus kept the law because we can't..now we keep the law out of love for him. The reason we don't do all the ceremonial stuff in the OT is because there are distinctions in OT law..there are ceremonial laws which were foreshadowings of Christ which need not be done anylonger because we have the real deal (your shellfish thing would fall into this category), there are Civil laws which we do follow, just not the one's in the OT because we aren't Isrealites, we follow civil laws like obeying the speed limmit..and then there are moral laws, like not committing acts of homosexuality..which we still adhere to because of and for Christ today. Homosexuality is spoken against in the NT also..though people on here would probably try to convince you that it's "translated wrong" or something foolish like that..

What is the rubric for deciding which part we need to follow and which we need not?

 

[Zaac]

Jesus freed us from sin..the OT laws are still fully applicable to everyone..and we keep them perfectly in God's eyes because of what Jesus has done. Jesus kept the law because we can't..now we keep the law out of love for him. The reason we don't do all the ceremonial stuff in the OT is because there are distinctions in OT law..there are ceremonial laws which were foreshadowings of Christ which need not be done anylonger because we have the real deal (your shellfish thing would fall into this category), there are Civil laws which we do follow, just not the one's in the OT because we aren't Isrealites, we follow civil laws like obeying the speed limmit..and then there are moral laws, like not committing acts of homosexuality..which we still adhere to because of and for Christ today. Homosexuality is spoken against in the NT also..though people on here would probably try to convince you that it's "translated wrong" or something foolish like that..

Well said.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

What is the rubric for deciding which part we need to follow and which we need not?

they are separable into 3 categories. Ceremonial/ritual , civil , and moral. The first 2 are negated for various different reasons, and the 3rd is held as continuing. The debate, of course, is in which category each law applies.

 

[Zaac]

What is the rubric for deciding which part we need to follow and which we need not?

The FULL COUNSEL of the Word. That which is expected of you is given in the New Testament and pretty much reinforces a lot of what was expected of you in the Old Testament.

As BA said, the ceremonial laws were made complete in Jesus Christ and it's a process we no longer have to go through. But the civil/moral laws given by Him in the OT and reinforced and made complete in the NT have not changed.

Acts of sexual immorality are STILL acts of sexual immorality and homosexual fornication is in this category of sin.

 

[Polycarp1]

they are separable into 3 categories. Ceremonial/ritual , civil , and moral. The first 2 are negated for various different reasons, and the 3rd is held as continuing. The debate, of course, is in which category each law applies.

And just who set apart these three categories, and where in the Bible are they distinguished, so that we can know what parts of the Law are still binding. (Oh, and while you're at it, explain how that coincides with Paul's claim that we are free from the Law.)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Without even referencing the law on homosexuality - one can simply look at Christs definition of marriage.christ doesnt need to define what marriage isnt since He clearly defined what it is and Gods itent for it.

From the NT we can also understand that we are not to practice sexual immorality. This leaves no room in itself for homosexual relationships. The marriage is a picture of the relationship between God and man with Christ representing the groom and the church the bride. The church married to itself is not a valid union neither is a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The purpose of marriage is defined in malachai and its to produce godly offspring. The church when in a loving relationship with Christ produce believers - when its in bed with the world it produces apostates from the church hence doesnt produce believers.

 

[CShephard53]

I'm not for or against gays.

Right now I just don't know if it's wrong or it's fine for people to do this according to the Bible.

My original thought was this: Was not homosexuality condemned in the Laws of Moses, in the OT? I have also read that Jesus freed us from these Laws under his new covenant; After all, we don't have to stay away from pork or shellfish anymore, which the OT also condemns. I was under the impression that most of these laws were made solely for the health of his people; I can understand the certain foods thing and stuff, because some meats have been proved to be worse for you than others, like pork. But then there's the mixed fabrics law, which people obviously don't follow anymore (and it didn't even make any sense to begin with anyways), so I don't know what that is all about.

So, does that means the law concerning homosexuality is gone as well?

I want some honest answers on this, taken from scripture, and not from opinion, please.

I don't see many of the moral laws just disappearing because Jesus atoned for them. I do see the the sacrificial laws disappearing, because atonement eliminated the need for them. I also see the cleanliness laws disappearing, because atonement also eliminated the need for them.

 

[CShephard53]

Whoops, Romans 1:26-27.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Read Cor 6:9.

Regardless if your translation includes the word homosexual or not- it still covers the sexually immoral (ie fornicators and adulterers).

 

[HOPEOF9]

Romans 1:
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, F3 wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, F4 unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

And just who set apart these three categories, and where in the Bible are they distinguished, so that we can know what parts of the Law are still binding. (Oh, and while you're at it, explain how that coincides with Paul's claim that we are free from the Law.)

Christ set them apart by His sacrifice. At least I hope so, because I don't have any goats or rams to put on the altar.

And are we not to recognize the law, even though we are not held under by it?

The laws apply in the sense that yes Christ did die as an atoning sacrifice for sins, but does that mean we are free to sin as much as we want?

 

[*Starlight*]

Without even referencing the law on homosexuality - one can simply look at Christs definition of marriage.christ doesnt need to define what marriage isnt since He clearly defined what it is and Gods itent for it.

From the NT we can also understand that we are not to practice sexual immorality. This leaves no room in itself for homosexual relationships. The marriage is a picture of the relationship between God and man with Christ representing the groom and the church the bride. The church married to itself is not a valid union neither is a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The purpose of marriage is defined in malachai and its to produce godly offspring. The church when in a loving relationship with Christ produce believers - when its in bed with the world it produces apostates from the church hence doesnt produce believers.

If that was true, then does it mean that infertile couples are also not valid marriages to you? They also don't fulfill what you see as God's purpose for marriage.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Christ set them apart by His sacrifice. At least I hope so, because I don't have any goats or rams to put on the altar.

And are we not to recognize the law, even though we are not held under by it?

The laws apply in the sense that yes Christ did die as an atoning sacrifice for sins, but does that mean we are free to sin as much as we want?

You were asked for scriptural support for the claim that somehow the law was separated into ritual, civil categories.