If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

Jase said:

You'd be wise not to quote Leviticus at all, as it doesn't apply to anyone of the modern day, and your attempts at arguing that any of it is relelvant merely shows your hypocrisy, since you ignore every other law except the ones you personally don't like ( and coincidentally don't have to deal with, i.e. sexual orientation).

Click to expand...

You'de be wise to heed the OT moral laws becuz the same laws
for morality continue today.

Unless bestiality which is right underneath the homosexuality law in Lev.
18 is also fine today now too? & incest & adultery.......
& the host of others.

I'm no hypocrite to relay God's moral laws as He gives them; I'm
under the same obligation to obey them like everyone else
and they carry on today as they did then; since they were and
are His standard of true Love.
What man has done is pervert His definitions of love and call that
love. They can get away with that down here, but there is a day of judgment on the way for rebellion & disobedience.

Nadiine, I don't think you understand the nature of evolutionary theory. You might do well to read up on it (in a non-Christianized book, preferably). None of your criticisms so far actually apply to evolutionary theory.

One huge problem with using Levitical laws to legislate morality is that,
unless one personally follows all those laws themselves, they cannot
very well attempt to enforce it upon others and expect to be taken at
all seriously in doing so. For instance, Leviticus states:


Leviticus also supports slavery, as well as tells you when murdering
your own child is morally acceptable.

Now, how many of the laws in Leviticus are people breaking each and
every day while at the same time getting hung up on others’ sexual
orientation?!



.

Jase said:

He placed a death penalty on children talking back to their parents, and women who got raped as well. Do you seriously want to go there Nadiine?

Click to expand...

You should really cite these verses. I've dismantled the idea that rape victims were put to death in the OT several times on these forums. The verse says something along the lines 'if a man forces a woman, but the woman doesn't cry out, she will be put to death.' However a following verse says that a woman forced by a man in the field will not be put to death. Even without looking up the Hebrew, it's apparent that the woman in the city would know she would be heard whereas even if a woman screamed at the top of her lungs in the field, she would probably not be heard. So the woman in the city who 'is not heard' chose not to cry out - the implication is that she went along with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the former assertion proved out of context as well.

TheLowlyTortoise said:

You should really cite these verses. I've dismantled the idea that rape victims were put to death in the OT several times on these forums. The verse says something along the lines 'if a man forces a woman, but the woman doesn't cry out, she will be put to death.' However a following verse says that a woman forced by a man in the field will not be put to death. Even without looking up the Hebrew, it's apparent that the woman in the city would know she would be heard whereas even if a woman screamed at the top of her lungs in the field, she would probably not be heard. So the woman in the city who 'is not heard' chose not to cry out - the implication is that she went along with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the former assertion proved out of context as well.

Click to expand...

The apologist commentary I have read on the verses make the
important note that these aren't "little kids" or some young teens
with an attitude problem.

They say that they're much older kids, and they're very violent
or very rebellious to where they're leading others away from
God or into evil.
This isn't your ordinary "my son snuck out of the house to hang
w/ his friends" type stuff - it's more like the gangster type of
rebellion and it goes to the concept of putting out the leven so
it doesn't leven the entire group.
(1 bad apple ruins the bunch).

Also, they aren't honoring their father & mother in that state.
They're bringing shame w/ rebellion:
Exodus 20:12
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and
'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

Again we see how important things are to God. The office or authority of
the Father and mother were to be respected.

chaela said:

One huge problem with using Levitical laws to legislate morality is that,
unless one personally follows all those laws themselves, they cannot
very well attempt to enforce it upon others and expect to be taken at
all seriously in doing so. For instance, Leviticus states:

* That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)

* That eating lobster or shrimp or
scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev.11:10-
12)

* That wearing clothing made of different
fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)

* That partaking in modern agriculture is
a sin (Lev. 19:19)

* That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)

* That contact with a woman during her
period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)

* That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev.
11:42)

* That attending Church while wearing
glasses is a sin or allowing anyone
wearing glasses into your church is a
sin(Lev 21:20)

* That allowing anyone born with
scoliosis into your church is a sin
(Lev21:20)

* That allowing anyone who is
handicapped into your church is a sin
(Lev21:20)

​

Leviticus also supports slavery, as well as tells you when murdering
your own child is morally acceptable.

Now, how many of the laws in Leviticus are people breaking each and
every day while at the same time getting hung up on others’ sexual
orientation?!

Click to expand...

Then according to this post, I CAN commit bestiality & incest,
I can steal and lie and whatever else.

This is the typical response and I have to admit, it's tiresome.

Why are you mingling ceremonial/dietary laws here?
The LAW CHANGED thru Christ
Heb 7:12

Christ fulfilled the sacrificial & worship laws thru His sacrifice
and BECAME our Sabbath [rest]. We rest in His finished work
on the cross, and no longer need to perform religious ritual
for cleansing.
HE makes a believer Clean by His blood shed once for us.

WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE OF THE LAW WAS LOVE OF GOD
AND LOVE OF NEIGHBOR - THE LOVE LAWS which Jesus
directly reiterated in the NT - the love of neighbor
includes ALL moral laws from the OT.
Which I showed in Romans. Those moral laws display LOVE to
others. They stand and continue.
Unless you think I can murder anyone I want, or lie, cheat, steal
abuse and commit adultery??

Also, it doesn't SUPPORT slavery, it gives instruction for proper
treatment and the slavery wasn't even what we consider in
our modern times.

I truly wish people would stop shoveling out these false and
misinformed pretenses on what they THINK about scripture and actually look into the truth on what these things mean.
If you think this is actually true, then you SHOULD have a huge
problem with God becuz you're using it negatively as if He's cruel.

If He is, then why follow such a God? Last I checked, I thought we
were all supposedly supposed to be on the same side of God?
Yet you use attack speech against Him.
Maybe it's a means to discredit the Bible & then claim to follow the
same god? who knows anymore w/ people's loose theologies
that ignore scripture or hack it to bits.

& if it DOES discredit the Bible, then you shouldn't rely on one bit
of it as truth becuz it leads you into error elsewhere.
I'd toss it all out and be non-religious.

chaela said:

One huge problem with using Levitical laws to legislate morality is that,
unless one personally follows all those laws themselves, they cannot
very well attempt to enforce it upon others and expect to be taken at
all seriously in doing so. For instance, Leviticus states:

* That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)

* That eating lobster or shrimp or
scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev.11:10-
12)

* That wearing clothing made of different
fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)

* That partaking in modern agriculture is
a sin (Lev. 19:19)

* That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)

* That contact with a woman during her
period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)

* That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev.
11:42)

* That attending Church while wearing
glasses is a sin or allowing anyone
wearing glasses into your church is a
sin(Lev 21:20)

* That allowing anyone born with
scoliosis into your church is a sin
(Lev21:20)

* That allowing anyone who is
handicapped into your church is a sin
(Lev21:20)
​

Leviticus also supports slavery, as well as tells you when murdering
your own child is morally acceptable.

Now, how many of the laws in Leviticus are people breaking each and
every day while at the same time getting hung up on others’ sexual
orientation?!

Click to expand...

Edit: It may benefit the reader to note Nadiine's post prior to this one as complimentary.

It can be argued that the purpose of the law is to establish morality in light of God's perfect love and wisdom, truth and light. So, more than simply words, each law contains a moral truth, whether it takes years of prayer and study to understand that truth, or whether it should be evident from the first reading.

The interesting thing I've noticed whenever slavery is noted as being 'bible approved' is that anyone who brings it up does nothing to distinguish it from the slavery under the Egyptians or in early America (and the rest of the world up to that time.) But, there is a major difference. The period of slavery in the law is set at six years (I think that's the number, I know it's less than ten) and then the slave becomes free, unless that slave chooses to remain a servant, or has committed some crime to extend his servitude. In general, it seems to me from context throughout scripture, that slaves under the law were treated rather well, almost like family. This can be seen in the law that prescibes how a slave girl can be married to the master's son. People will read this in the light of feminism and call it barbaric, call her a love-slave, but such an assertion ignores context completely. It was the duty of a man to preside over the marriage of his children, especially his daughter. We see this in marriage ceremony today when the father gives away the bride. The slave-girl was extended family, and if she was a suitable wife for her master's son, the law provides that the man must treat her as a daughter right away.

There's also an interesting part of the Levitical laws that is missed as well. The Hebrew people were supposed to be the example of Godly behavior to the rest of the world, so some of these laws that seem ridiculous had a purpose. Think about it. If Jesus was eventually just going to say 'what passes through the stomach just comes out anyway,' why would dietary laws exist in the first place? I can think of two reasons: a physical example of cleanliness, and discipline. Sleeping with a woman on her period would also go against cleanliness. The reason for the law of clothing made of more than one material? To prohibit and avoid vain fashion, and practice humility.

You cite Lev 19:19 as showing modern farming practice to be wrong. If you mean the planting of two different kinds of seeds in the field, the Hebrew word is 'mingled' seed. No farmer would sow wheat and corn within each other. I've seen soybeans next to corn in the same acreage, but in all practical purposes, they are two separate fields.

Leviticus 19:27 doesn't say shaving is a sin. Lev 19:27
"Ye shall not round the corners your heads" - This and the following verse evidently refer to customs which must have existed among the Egyptians when the Israelites sojourned in Egypt; and what they were it is now difficult, even with any probability, to conjecture. Herodotus observes that the Arabs shave or cut their hair round, in honor of Bacchus, who, they say, had his hair cut in this way, lib. iii., cap. 8. He says also that the Macians, a people of Libya, cut their hair round, so as to leave a tuft on the top of the head, lib. iv., cap. 175. In this manner the Chinese cut their hair to the present day. This might have been in honor of some idol, and therefore forbidden to the Israelites.

Jesus came to fulfil the law, but that did not repeal the law. Jesus spoke against the pharisees for the burden they placed on the people out of the law, but that makes the interpretation of the law wrong. If God decreed it, there must have been some moral ground for God to do so. I think Jesus showed that the proper observence of the law is to read its intent, not just its surface meaning.

That being said, the above assertion of 21:20 is completely out of context. Verse 17 begins words for Aaron's decendants, who would be the priests of the temple. God decreed that no one with any major defect would not be able to minister to God's people, and this makes sense in that the preists needed to be men that the people could look up to and not find any fault with.

Seriously, where did you get this list? I'm assuming you pulled it off some site that doesn't have all its facts straight (that happens on the internet.) Anyway, if I were to eat shellfish or pork (which I generally don't anyway) how would it make any other levitical law any less of a sin? If I steal, does that mean I can't tell a guy not to kill someone because it's wrong? That's the implication being made here.

Nadiine said:

The apologist commentary I have read on the verses make the
important note that these aren't "little kids" or some young teens
with an attitude problem.

They say that they're much older kids, and they're very violent
or very rebellious to where they're leading others away from
God or into evil.
This isn't your ordinary "my son snuck out of the house to hang
w/ his friends" type stuff - it's more like the gangster type of
rebellion and it goes to the concept of putting out the leven so
it doesn't leven the entire group.
(1 bad apple ruins the bunch).

Also, they aren't honoring their father & mother in that state.
They're bringing shame w/ rebellion:
Exodus 20:12
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and
'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

Again we see how important things are to God. The office or authority of
the Father and mother were to be respected.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remembered it was something to the effect of an ingrained problem, not just the terrible twos.

Tissue said:

Nadiine, I don't think you understand the nature of evolutionary theory. You might do well to read up on it (in a non-Christianized book, preferably). None of your criticisms so far actually apply to evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

You're assuming she cares to understand it. Maybe she does understand it but chooses to reduce the idea to the extent of ridicule. Many Christians will never accept evolution, and it's not really important that they do, for them, or for science. I think evolution would be more agreeable to bible-believers if loud-mouth atheists in the field didn't go to great lengths to establish the ridiculous idea that evolution disproves God. Along with that is the idea that each step in the 'evolution' of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution of species all just happened without any cause, as if by chance.

Personally, I can see how God could have used evolution to create all the species of the world, but I can also see how evolution would make sense to most people even if a creationist view were true and evolution ultimately were not. To me, if evolution is God's mechanism for creation, he still did it in six days, but the relativity of time easily accounts for the discrepancy between the Genesis account and our observation today. The biggest hole in evolution for me is that it doesn't really account for our greater intelligence, but especially our creative nature. (Don't bother citing human-like behavior in primates, it's not the same, the lesser souls of animals don't have the same capacity as the souls of humans. Using tools is not creating either.) If evolution could produce one intelligent, creative, society-building species, shouldn't there be another different one by now? If survival of the fittest is really the core truth of life, why aren't we all cockroaches?

I'm not sure most proponents of evolution understand the nature of science. (You mentioned something to the inverse effect.) They tend to present evolution as an established truth, but that goes against the fact that science is always re-establishing itself. Evolution cannot be proven, but it could be disproven by future scientific discoveries. The evidence may support evolution, but the same evidence means different things to different interpreters who apply it to Intelligent Design or even Creationism.

TheLowlyTortoise said:

Yes, I remembered it was something to the effect of an ingrained problem, not just the terrible twos.

Click to expand...

ya huh =)

I think the OT shows us something important,.... how far WE have
strayed from what God considers holy and pure.
How much man has distorted so many of His commands and
principles to live how we feel like living instead of how He
designed us to.

And worse, the judging of God by so many posters who claim to follow Him.
As if God is the guilty party & He should learn what's moral from US.


The more people I hear touting sin as righteous, the more I see
how far people are straying from God's words.
It's hard to believe how callous alot of these posts are to simple
morality that used to hold a standard.

The more depraved the world gets, the more self proclaiming
christians seem to stray. Ironic .

You're assuming she cares to understand it. Maybe she does understand it but chooses to reduce the idea to the extent of ridicule

Click to expand...

You are very wise

Nadiine said:

Looks like you took that one out of it's context again too.

Read the context LH - it's about SALVATION, not sex.

It's explaining that ANY HUMAN BEING no matter their gender,
color, nationality, status or age are hindered from belonging
to Christ.

And do I have to quote Lev. 18 & 20 again to prove that God was
against same sexes?
Your verse doesn't negate other verses we have that prove your
assertion wrong.

Time to head back to the drawing board

Click to expand...

No, that verse doesn't negate Leviticus 18-20... the new covenant does. Let me know when you want to join us in the New Covenant and stop blindly following OT legalism.

Nadiine said:

mangling!?
I'm not the one claiming we came from chimps.

Maybe yaw'l can show me the last time a woman gave birth
to a little orangutan, I'd like to see that

Click to expand...

Um, yes, mangling... your continued insistance that evolutionary theory involves being decended from chimps, or women giving birth to orang utans demonstraes you either have a very limited understanding of ACTUAL evolutionary theory, Or, you have a perfect understanding of it, but you choose to misrepresent it and claim it says things it does not. Either way, mangling is a perfect description of what you are doing.

Nadiine said:

My understanding of creation is not dumb - it's also the vast majority
of Christianity that supports that view of Creation.

Click to expand...

Oh yes? By whose figures? Its quite a claim since, for example, the Catholic and Anglican churches both hold that evolution and big bang cosmology are factual representations of the method used by God to create the universe and life. I'm not sure about other denominations, but once you take Catholics and Anglos out of the equation, I think you'd have a seriously hard time coming up with "most Christians", and thats assuming that all other denominations believe in literal Creationism anyway, which I'm sure they do not.

I stand by the brilliant Creationist scientists who refute your
statements as what is false.

Click to expand...

Which "brilliant Creation scientists" would they be? Where can I find their scientifically coherent refutations in peer reviewed journals on the subject?

One huge problem with using Levitical laws to legislate morality is that,
unless one personally follows all those laws themselves, they cannot
very well attempt to enforce it upon others and expect to be taken at
all seriously in doing so. For instance, Leviticus states:

Click to expand...

Indeed, this is precisely the problem I have with people who base their condemnation of homosexuals on Leviticus. They claim "Leviticus says its WRONG" then blithely go on to wear mixed fibre clothing and fail to stone rape victims and basically ignore 90% of OT laws that they find inconvenient. Oh sure, they'll try to justify it with arcane, non-Biblical rationalisations about "cultural vs moral laws", and such, but most people can see this as nothing more than bias excusing special pleading.

The bit that bemuses/frightens me (depending on mood) is that often these people, (Nadiine, case in point) will claim that the Flood, 6 day Creationism, Jonah and a whole bunch of other stuff which never actually happened, MUST be historical fact, and are in no way subject to exageration, or the possibility of being metaphor. and Leviticus 18-20 is absolutely binding and forever will be... yet verses about loving your neighbour, not judging, accepting others, rendering unto Caesar, rich people and camels through eyes of needles, and so on, are all meant to be taken metaphorically, or are being taken out of context when someone tries to tell them they should stop giving homosexuals a hard time.

Doublethink.

LightHorseman said:

Indeed, this is precisely the problem I have with people who base their condemnation of homosexuals on Leviticus. They claim "Leviticus says its WRONG" then blithely go on to wear mixed fibre clothing and fail to stone rape victims and basically ignore 90% of OT laws that they find inconvenient. Oh sure, they'll try to justify it with arcane, non-Biblical rationalisations about "cultural vs moral laws", and such, but most people can see this as nothing more than bias excusing special pleading.
Doublethink.

Click to expand...

Good point

LightHorseman said:

Indeed, this is precisely the problem I have with people who base their condemnation of homosexuals on Leviticus. They claim "Leviticus says its WRONG" then blithely go on to wear mixed fibre clothing and fail to stone rape victims and basically ignore 90% of OT laws that they find inconvenient. Oh sure, they'll try to justify it with arcane, non-Biblical rationalisations about "cultural vs moral laws", and such, but most people can see this as nothing more than bias excusing special pleading.

The bit that bemuses/frightens me (depending on mood) is that often these people, (Nadiine, case in point) will claim that the Flood, 6 day Creationism, Jonah and a whole bunch of other stuff which never actually happened, MUST be historical fact, and are in no way subject to exageration, or the possibility of being metaphor. and Leviticus 18-20 is absolutely binding and forever will be... yet verses about loving your neighbour, not judging, accepting others, rendering unto Caesar, rich people and camels through eyes of needles, and so on, are all meant to be taken metaphorically, or are being taken out of context when someone tries to tell them they should stop giving homosexuals a hard time.

Doublethink.

Click to expand...

ROFL Like you really just applied Orwellian terminology to conclude a post with minced words and reason-by-feeling attitudes. By minced words I mean that you can't reasonably begin with one person's views as an example and then apply a blanket assertion about people like her as if all these things must be true about anyone who thinks Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are literal, as well as Leviticus 18-20 being irrelevant. What happened to falsify these verses?

Lev 18:22 "'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. 24 "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

You can't throw chapter 18 in with dietary laws because it doesn't include any. You can't say all of Leviticus is the same either. Chapter 11 deals with cleanliness, breaking any of the regulations therein wasn't called defilement or perversion or detestable, and certainly didn't lead to an entire nation to be defiled. Really, it can be argued that ceremonial laws were only for the Israelites, but nothing about chapter 18 suggests anything ceremonial. Then again, the Israelites were called to observe these laws because they were sanctified unto God. Now since we are to be sanctified unto God, shouldn't we give credence to these laws as well?

Special pleading is what you have been doing. Where's your scripture to back up your position? We've provided plenty, and given sufficient reason why ceremonial laws can be considered distinct from the laws in chapter 18. It's special pleading to pick which laws are OK to follow (that is, I'm assuming you don't think it's alright for a man to sleep with his father's wife), and then an ad hominem appeal to our supposed hypocrisy when we proclaim the sinfulness exposed by these laws.

TheLowlyTortoise said:

ROFL Like you really just applied Orwellian terminology to conclude a post with minced words and reason-by-feeling attitudes. By minced words I mean that you can't reasonably begin with one person's views as an example and then apply a blanket assertion about people like her as if all these things must be true about anyone who thinks Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are literal, as well as Leviticus 18-20 being irrelevant. What happened to falsify these verses?

Lev 18:22 "'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. 24 "'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

You can't throw chapter 18 in with dietary laws because it doesn't include any. You can't say all of Leviticus is the same either. Chapter 11 deals with cleanliness, breaking any of the regulations therein wasn't called defilement or perversion or detestable, and certainly didn't lead to an entire nation to be defiled. Really, it can be argued that ceremonial laws were only for the Israelites, but nothing about chapter 18 suggests anything ceremonial. Then again, the Israelites were called to observe these laws because they were sanctified unto God. Now since we are to be sanctified unto God, shouldn't we give credence to these laws as well?

Special pleading is what you have been doing. Where's your scripture to back up your position? We've provided plenty, and given sufficient reason why ceremonial laws can be considered distinct from the laws in chapter 18. It's special pleading to pick which laws are OK to follow (that is, I'm assuming you don't think it's alright for a man to sleep with his father's wife), and then an ad hominem appeal to our supposed hypocrisy when we proclaim the sinfulness exposed by these laws.

Click to expand...

No special pleading from me... I'm not the one ytrying to excuse my adherence to some OT laws while ignoring others. We are released from ALL OIT laws under the New Covenant. Period. Where's the special pleading there? There isn't any.

But this is a standard tactic of literalists and legalists... when the fallacy of their argument is pointed out to them, say "nuh uh, YOU are" and hope that shuts down debate.

You can accuse me of making rationalisations based on emotion, quite possibly, but I defy you to find a single example of special pleading in my personal theology. Indeed, if you can identify one, I guarantee I will change my personal theology to discard what ever I am using special pleading for. I have done this in the past when people have pointed out my errors to me, and I am happy to do so in the future. So, I accept the possibility that I may be guilty of special pleading, but I sincerely am unaware of it. So, if I am,I would consider it a blessing for you to point it out to me, explicitly and logically, so i can stop doing it. However, and call me prideful if you like, I really don't think you can, certainly not in regard to this issue anyway.

Special pleading is what you have been doing. Where's your scripture to back up your position? We've provided plenty, and given sufficient reason why ceremonial laws can be considered distinct from the laws in chapter 18. It's special pleading to pick which laws are OK to follow (that is, I'm assuming you don't think it's alright for a man to sleep with his father's wife), and then an ad hominem appeal to our supposed hypocrisy when we proclaim the sinfulness exposed by these laws.

Click to expand...

Its not OK to sleep with your father's wife, because that is contrary to Christ's new commandment, i.e. Love thy neighbour as thyself. I see no reason to consider mutually consentual homosexual relationships as contrary to the new law.

LightHorseman said:

No special pleading from me... I'm not the one ytrying to excuse my adherence to some OT laws while ignoring others. We are released from ALL OIT laws under the New Covenant. Period. Where's the special pleading there? There isn't any.

Click to expand...

No, but you see, I just showed you how you do use special pleading when you decide what laws are morally right and what aren't

But this is a standard tactic of literalists and legalists... when the fallacy of their argument is pointed out to them, say "nuh uh, YOU are" and hope that shuts down debate.

Click to expand...

Straw man. Address my argument, not my (supposed) character or some group of people I may or may not necessarily belong to outside of your notions about how I interpret scripture - which is based on the limited range of this topic.

You can accuse me of making rationalisations based on emotion, quite possibly, but I defy you to find a single example of special pleading in my personal theology. Indeed, if you can identify one, I guarantee I will change my personal theology to discard what ever I am using special pleading for. I have done this in the past when people have pointed out my errors to me, and I am happy to do so in the future. So, I accept the possibility that I may be guilty of special pleading, but I sincerely am unaware of it. So, if I am,I would consider it a blessing for you to point it out to me, explicitly and logically, so i can stop doing it. However, and call me prideful if you like, I really don't think you can, certainly not in regard to this issue anyway.

Click to expand...

I already identified your special pleading, you ignored it, hopefully not willfully. You also said yourself how your feelings weighed-in on this matter. Your last statement here alludes to closed-mindedness rather than pride. You're seemingly somewhat open to changing your mind, but mostly not. It's like having the blast door mostly closed, there's only a small portion that isn't defensive.

LightHorseman said:

Its not OK to sleep with your father's wife, because that is contrary to Christ's new commandment, i.e. Love thy neighbour as thyself. I see no reason to consider mutually consensual homosexual relationships as contrary to the new law.

Click to expand...

Mat 22:37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

'Love thy neighbor as thyself isn't the new law, it was the old law all along, and don't forget that this is only the second greatest, not the first which is to love God completely first and foremost. Jesus says all the law and prophets hang on these two commandments, so obviously he wasn't repealing the rest of the law to establish a new law. Indeed, these were there the whole time in the OT law.

Deu 6:5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Lev 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Now perhaps you'd like to cite the scripture that says "We are released from ALL OT laws under the New Covenant" so we can compare notes. If you already did, well I missed it. Do a search on http://blueletterbible.org if you need to.