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

[Tissue]

Who said common sense? Analytical thought is not a common sense, and spiritual discernment seems equally uncommon. If she and I can independently arrive at the same conclusion, maybe that should give you reason to pause for thought.

It does, and I think about it, and have so far rejected it in comparison to other things that I believe. But then, I'm not the one making sweeping claims about the truth value of my own position, as she is.

 

[OllieFranz]

Oh, is that verse 19.5? I don't have that. Seriously, where do you find that?

ואל־אשה בנדת טמאתה לא תקרב לגלות ערותה׃
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Leviticus 18:19

​

The phrase "put apart for her uncleanness" translates the word "niddah" which Leviticus 15:25-26 defines as lasting from the first drop of blood until a week after there has been no trace of blood. Orthodox Judaism has formalized the period as no less than two and a half weeks, although in many women spot of blood can continue for almost two weeks. Add in the first clean week and you are only days from the next period.

 

[JediMobius]

ואל־אשה בנדת טמאתה לא תקרב לגלות ערותה׃
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Leviticus 18:19

​

The phrase "put apart for her uncleanness" translates the word "niddah" which Leviticus 15:25-26 defines as lasting from the first drop of blood until a week after there has been no trace of blood. Orthodox Judaism has formalized the period as no less than two and a half weeks, although in many women spot of blood can continue for almost two weeks. Add in the first clean week and you are only days from the next period.

Well apparently the Orthodox Jews interpret the law to the extent of paranoia.

Lev 15:19 "'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Seven days, one week out of the month, is the regular amount of time a man shouldn't lie with his wife. The other verses speak of irregular flow.

Lev 15:19-33
This is concerning the ceremonial uncleanness which women lay under from their issues, both those that were regular and healthful, and according to the course of nature (Lev_15:19-24), and those that were unseasonable, excessive, and the disease of the body; such was the bloody issue of that poor woman who was suddenly cured by touching the hem of Christ's garment, after she had lain twelve years under her distemper, and had spent her estate upon physicians and physic in vain.

25-26 should then not apply to those women who don't have issue beyond a week. It even says "out of the time of her separation" how does that define niddah as you say when it is speaking of circumstances beyond niddah? Work on your hermeneutics.

Edit:

Furthermore, when you look up other instances of niddah, the most common reference is 7 days of uncleanness. Seven days is the norm, 25-26 is not.

 

[Nadiine]

Lev 15:19-33
This is concerning the ceremonial uncleanness which women lay under from their issues, both those that were regular and healthful, and according to the course of nature (Lev_15:19-24), and those that were unseasonable, excessive, and the disease of the body; such was the bloody issue of that poor woman who was suddenly cured by touching the hem of Christ's garment, after she had lain twelve years under her distemper, and had spent her estate upon physicians and physic in vain.

Ahhhhhhh how refreshing to read this.

Absolutely this is about ceremonial uncleanness.

Any "clean/unclean" laws dealt with their ability to commune
with and worship God. They were "unclean" until a certain
ritual was done. The rituals are done away with, so how can
they be "clean"? This also included the dietary laws for
uncleanness. We know those are changed thru Christ too.

They're done away with thru Christ's payment for our sin.
(that's not to say that the Lost are "clean" tho. Unless one
is born again and under Christ's blood, they are unclean
and fall under the law for judgment. They don't have Christ's
payment/covering).

I don't know why people keep bringing up those OT laws as
if they pertain to homosexuality laws. They don't.

Moral laws continue perpetually becuz they involve love of
neighbor; how we relate to mankind.

 

[LightHorseman]

God's TRUTH is for everyone - manipulation of scripture won't make
something true for someone. Or anyone for that matter.

I think I do understand your efforts - but I'm pretty sure CF might
not let me air them here.

The Bible says what it says very plainly in many subjects, esp. sin and how to be saved. People do a fairer job with interpreting
science fiction than bible verses and I think the reason why is
obvious, fiction doesn't tell us what we can't do in real life
or judge us.

But we are told that the natural man cannot understand scripture
becuz it's spiritually discernable... so many won't be able to
interpret it for what it says (most likely becuz they don't want
the truth).

Additionally, if you want to attribute nearly everything to
metaphor and analogy, then none of you guys can claim I'm
wrong becuz metaphor and analogy render scripture relative
to the reader's interpretation....
so...... either way I'm in pretty good shape =D

Says she who claims anything remotely inconvenient to her are metaphor, analogy, or cases of mistaken context.

 

[LightHorseman]

The Bible says very few things 'plainly'. I am always being re-educated in things that I thought were excessively clear when I was younger, but that a new understanding of the original text has moved to a different light.

Nadiine, there are people who make the same claim that you do (that is, that Scripture is common sense), yet read some verses completely differently than you do. If you grant them sincerity, doesn't that give you reason to pause for thought?

Nadiine is on record as saying that she doesn't even care to read anyone who doesn't 100% agree with her extant position, so, my guess is "no".

 

[LightHorseman]

It is entirely possible that evolutionary science has missed one crucial piece of evidence that, once discovered, would dismantle the entire model. So, to claim it isn't truthful is only to see the evidence from a different perspective, and that's not wrongful.

Do you understand what "astronomically remote" means?

Is your understanding of probability something akin to the guy who thinks that if something is at all possible, it has a one in 2 chance of happening, thus the LHC has a 1 in 2 chance of destroying the world?

 

[JediMobius]

Ahhhhhhh how refreshing to read this.

Commentaries are helpful.

Absolutely this is about ceremonial uncleanness.

Any "clean/unclean" laws dealt with their ability to commune
with and worship God. They were "unclean" until a certain
ritual was done. The rituals are done away with, so how can
they be "clean"? This also included the dietary laws for
uncleanness. We know those are changed thru Christ too.

They're done away with thru Christ's payment for our sin.
(that's not to say that the Lost are "clean" tho. Unless one
is born again and under Christ's blood, they are unclean
and fall under the law for judgment. They don't have Christ's
payment/covering).

I don't know why people keep bringing up those OT laws as
if they pertain to homosexuality laws. They don't.

Moral laws continue perpetually becuz they involve love of
neighbor; how we relate to mankind.

I know! Yet the argument keeps coming up! 'You're not an Israelite.' But I am a child of God. 'You eat shellfish and your Sabbath is Sunday.' Actually, I don't, but I am free in Christ to do so if I see fit. (My Sabbath is Saturday.) It's like people read the bible as one big generalization as if no one *cough-Paul-cough* ever got specific!

Where's the wisdom? Aren't people asking God for things anymore?

Do you understand what "astronomically remote" means?

Is your understanding of probability something akin to the guy who thinks that if something is at all possible, it has a one in 2 chance of happening, thus the LHC has a 1 in 2 chance of destroying the world?

Are you trying to patronize? I didn't even get in to probability, only possibility, and you seem to be applying generalizations to me before even reading my posts. Do I understand what astronomically remote means? Yeah, it's the chance that God really wants me to study evolution in-and-out so that I understand it completely. I'll do that with his word, thank you.

Look, I don't care if you are convinced that evolution is fact, or 95% fact or whatever, just don't ask or expect me to take such things for granted.

 

[Rajni]

I don't know why people keep bringing up those OT laws as
if they pertain to homosexuality laws. They don't.

​

James 2:10 – “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in
one point, he has become guilty of all.” There doesn't appear to be
any distinction being made between the types of law in this verse.

As I mentioned earlier (in post 230), why insist there be any
difference? Ceremonial, dietary, or even traffic laws – if it’s something
God said Don’t Do, ya don’t do it. You don’t get to pick and choose
which ones others are going to obey and which ones you’re going to
ignore. Law is Law. If God said no, that means no.Therefore, if
someone is going to pull “God said don’t do this” out of any OT
rulebooks, they need to be certain that they’re following every single
jot and tittle of that rulebook beforehand, because otherwise they will
(and do) come across as hypocritical.

Moral laws continue perpetually becuz they involve love of neighbor; how we relate to mankind.

I see and understand the distinction being made here.

I guess I still am unsure that this distinction has any influence on the
rightness or wrongness of a homosexual relationship provided that the
relationship, like a heterosexual one, exists within a loving context as
opposed to a selfish, lust-driven context.




.

 

[LightHorseman]

Look, I don't care if you are convinced that evolution is fact, or 95% fact or whatever, just don't ask or expect me to take such things for granted.

I dont expect anyone to take it for granted. I expect people to rationally evaluate the observable evidence though, and, thus far, all observable evidence points to eolution, so demanding people believe something else instead isn't a matter of "fact" vs "theory", its a matter of willfully misunderstanding the truth of what the science says

 

[Nadiine]

I dont expect anyone to take it for granted. I expect people to rationally evaluate the observable evidence though, and, thus far, all observable evidence points to eolution, so demanding people believe something else instead isn't a matter of "fact" vs "theory", its a matter of willfully misunderstanding the truth of what the science says

no it doesn't all point to evolution - if it did, you wouldn't have
any disputes from professional creationists in the field.

Creation science does rationally evaluate the subject and they
find that evolution is pure myth and false evidence.
The fact is that you choose to believe one over the other

 

[LightHorseman]

no it doesn't all point to evolution - if it did, you wouldn't have
any disputes from professional creationists in the field.

Creation science does rationally evaluate the subject and they
find that evolution is pure myth and false evidence.
The fact is that you choose to believe one over the other

By all means, show me the barest, single shred of evidence that supports Creati0onism that is remotely scientifically rigorous. A single pro Creationism peer reviewed journal article would be sufficient. I shan't hold my breath.

 

[LightHorseman]

of course, if what you say were true, I'm sure you would have shown us all this anti evolution evidence, rather than the constant reams of strawmen claiming that evolution says our grandparents were baboons, and other such PRATT gibberish

 

[LightHorseman]

By all means, show me the barest, single shred of evidence that supports Creati0onism that is remotely scientifically rigorous. A single pro Creationism peer reviewed journal article would be sufficient. I shan't hold my breath.

*And a stoney silence was the only reply*

Goodness... a less charitable person might think that the lack of an article being cited might be because no such article exists?! Surely not. Obviously all the Creationists have all spontaneously had their computers crash, and will be along momentarily to deluge me in peer reviewed, scientifically rigorous articles debunking evolution and pointing unambiguously towards 6 day Creationism as being an accurate representation of the origins of life and the universe.



Any second now...





Any moment at all...





Any time....






Um....







Hello?

 

[Nadiine]

By all means, show me the barest, single shred of evidence that supports Creati0onism that is remotely scientifically rigorous. A single pro Creationism peer reviewed journal article would be sufficient. I shan't hold my breath.

Honestly, I'm not wasting my time on it LH.
I've seen plenty of truth and facts from scripture get ignored and
denied in these threads, so any amount of hard evidence, I
highly doubt will make ANY difference.

It's also off topic, this isn't an evolution thread. If I wanted to
debate evolution, I'd be in a thread created for that.

I find it's a huge waste of time when people have their
minds made up already. Same goes with scripture.

 

[Jase]

no it doesn't all point to evolution - if it did, you wouldn't have
any disputes from professional creationists in the field.

Creation science does rationally evaluate the subject and they
find that evolution is pure myth and false evidence.
The fact is that you choose to believe one over the other

Nadiine, there is no such thing as a professional creationist. Creationism is not a science, and never will be. The only thing creationists do professionally is lie to those who don't know any better.

 

[Jase]

Honestly, I'm not wasting my time on it LH.
I've seen plenty of truth and facts from scripture get ignored and
denied in these threads, so any amount of hard evidence, I
highly doubt will make ANY difference.

How convenient I must say. And ironic too.

It's also off topic, this isn't an evolution thread. If I wanted to
debate evolution, I'd be in a thread created for that.

But as has already pointed out, this topic does deal with origin of humans and their sexuality, therefore evolution is an appropriate topic to include when talking about how humans fit into the image of God, and where homosexuality plays a role.

I find it's a huge waste of time when people have their
minds made up already. Same goes with scripture.

This quite adequately applies to yourself aswell, you are aware right? You've certainly demonstrated that no amount of evidence or arguments of any kind will ever disuade you from your opinion. Why should you expect any different from us? At least we actually have evidence to support our position. Sadly to say, the creationist position is merely a matter of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "nuh uh, the bible doesn't say that"! No evidence, no facts, no arguments, no peer reviewed studies, nothing. Is it any wonder why non-creationists think creationism is laughable?

 

[JediMobius]

But as has already pointed out, this topic does deal with origin of humans and their sexuality, therefore evolution is an appropriate topic to include when talking about how humans fit into the image of God, and where homosexuality plays a role.

Oh, do you think God evolved? Do you think He was born from a set of parents who passed on genetic traits? Does God have a navel or genitals? Does He have to get up to use the bathroom frequently?

If evolution is true, it has no bearing on being created in the image of God because God is not physical, the 'image of God' must be something metaphysical like our soul which carries individuality and creativity, and spirit which allows us to commune with God.

 

[Nadiine]

How convenient I must say. And ironic too.

frankly Jase, I could care less what attack you use, I'm not wasting
my time going off topic for a biased audience to disagree
with anyways.

If you want to claim God didn't create Adam from nothing and instead
borrowed from a baboon, be my guest. I have plenty of solid ground
to stand on in Creation Science. And I stand in good company with
prominant Theologians and apologists who likewise agree.
Go fight them - there's websites galore to go attack.

But as has already pointed out, this topic does deal with origin of humans and their sexuality, therefore evolution is an appropriate topic to include when talking about how humans fit into the image of God, and where homosexuality plays a role.

How about where ANYTHING plays a role when great great
granpappy was a chimp...

This quite adequately applies to yourself aswell, you are aware right? You've certainly demonstrated that no amount of evidence or arguments of any kind will ever disuade you from your opinion.

It absolutely includes me - which is why I find it pointless to
debate the topic here. You're set in yours, I'm set in mine due to scripture.

And frankly, unless one is a scientist, people are only left to pick
a side since they are unqualified to even decide if one side is wrong
or not due to ignorance of the topic.
That would be like a person who doesn't know the Chinese language,
trying to tell the interpretor that they're wrong in their interpretation.
How do you KNOW the interpretor's wrong.

Why should you expect any different from us? At least we actually have evidence to support our position. Sadly to say, the creationist position is merely a matter of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "nuh uh, the bible doesn't say that"! No evidence, no facts, no arguments, no peer reviewed studies, nothing. Is it any wonder why non-creationists think creationism is laughable?

To what I bolded - are you even going to make a claim that
Creationsts HAVE no evidence?
That just becuz I won't waste my time in an evolution debate here
that there IS NO EVIDENCE? oh dear.

I didn't say anybody else couldn't debate you - I'm simply not
going to. I highly doubt creationism facts hinge on my
presentation of it here. lol

 

[LightHorseman]

Honestly, I'm not wasting my time on it LH.
I've seen plenty of truth and facts from scripture get ignored and
denied in these threads, so any amount of hard evidence, I
highly doubt will make ANY difference.

It's also off topic, this isn't an evolution thread. If I wanted to
debate evolution, I'd be in a thread created for that.

I find it's a huge waste of time when people have their
minds made up already. Same goes with scripture.

Why is it that ever time a creationist is asked to show all this scientific support they have, they make excuses for why they shouldn'y have to?

Of course its relevent to this thread, because most of us here are pointing out that homosexuality evolved naturally. So if you posted evidence for creationism, that would prove homosexuality didn't evolve. Of course, no such evidence exists, which is why you aren't posting it. Surely a single link to a genuine peer reviewed article wouldn't waste THAT much of your time... if such an article existed.