leviticus 20

[RMDY]

Clearly this explains that there were moral things unacceptable to God including witchcraft and dishonoring parents. This chapter clearly also talks about sexual immorality. Witchcraft, sexual activities and dishonoring parents as well as other things were unacceptable to God and they still are. The new testament confirms this by asking children to honor their parents, abstain from witchcraft and sanctify their bodies with sexual morality as an act of spiritual service to God. And all this has to do with the first commandment of Jesus: Love God. Jesus, when referring to the kinds of sexual immorality that comes from the heart and defiles someone was talking about the sexual immoralities listed in this chapter lev 20 as well. Don't take my word for it, take God's Word for it.

 

[OllieFranz]

Clearly this explains that there were moral things unacceptable to God including witchcraft and dishonoring parents. This chapter clearly also talks about sexual immorality. Witchcraft, sexual activities and dishonoring parents as well as other things were unacceptable to God and they still are. The new testament confirms this by asking children to honor their parents, abstain from witchcraft and sanctify their bodies with sexual morality as an act of spiritual service to God. And all this has to do with the first commandment of Jesus: Love God. Jesus, when referring to the kinds of sexual immorality that comes from the heart and defiles someone was talking about the sexual immoralities listed in this chapter lev 20 as well. Don't take my word for it, take God's Word for it.

If disobeying the sexual restictions in Leviticus 20 is sexual immorality that you avoid, thenI guess this means you honor the niddah laws and refrain from intimate contact with your wife more than two weeks every month because she is ritually unclean due to her period. (See verse 20:18) Or are just as guilty as those you accuse of breaking the command of verse 13?

 

[KCKID]

Clearly this explains that there were moral things unacceptable to God including witchcraft and dishonoring parents. This chapter clearly also talks about sexual immorality. Witchcraft, sexual activities and dishonoring parents as well as other things were unacceptable to God and they still are. The new testament confirms this by asking children to honor their parents, abstain from witchcraft and sanctify their bodies with sexual morality as an act of spiritual service to God. And all this has to do with the first commandment of Jesus: Love God. Jesus, when referring to the kinds of sexual immorality that comes from the heart and defiles someone was talking about the sexual immoralities listed in this chapter lev 20 as well. Don't take my word for it, take God's Word for it.

When are people going to catch on that this has NOTHING to do with one's sexual orientation?

 

[RMDY]

If disobeying the sexual restictions in Leviticus 20 is sexual immorality that you avoid, thenI guess this means you honor the niddah laws and refrain from intimate contact with your wife more than two weeks every month because she is ritually unclean due to her period. (See verse 20:18) Or are just as guilty as those you accuse of breaking the command of verse 13?

Your missing what I am trying to say here! I am talking about sexual morality that originates from the heart, not "unclean" things like periods and mildew.

 

[OllieFranz]

Your missing what I am trying to say here! I am talking about sexual morality that originates from the heart, not "unclean" things like periods and mildew.

What you said you were talking about in the OP was sexual immorality as defined in Leviticus Chapter 20. Leviticus Chapter 20 makes no distinction between the immorality of incest, adultery, bestiality, "man-lying" or sex with any woman for the wrong 2 1/2 weeks every month.

Leviticus Chapter 18 might be seen to make a distinction, but if it does, it lumps sex with a woman in niddah with the more immoral sins of incest and adultery, and treats bestiality and "man-lying" as lesser offfences.

 

[RMDY]

What you said you were talking about in the OP was sexual immorality as defined in Leviticus Chapter 20. Leviticus Chapter 20 makes no distinction between the immorality of incest, adultery, bestiality, "man-lying" or sex with any woman for the wrong 2 1/2 weeks every month.

Leviticus Chapter 18 might be seen to make a distinction, but if it does, it lumps sex with a woman in niddah with the more immoral sins of incest and adultery, and treats bestiality and "man-lying" as lesser offfences.

Still Lev 20:18 is considered morally wrong even by non christians, so perhaps this is sexually immoral thing too? But nonetheless, this isn't the point here, the point is about homosexuality being sinful on a moral level, not whether it is lawful to have sex during a woman's period of not. I mean, come on, are you going to nullify everything I said previously just because it mentions to not have sex during a woman's period. There are woman and men who do naturally consider this to be immoral as well you know even if they aren't christians.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz
In fact I do avoid intimate contact with my wife during her period, or rather she avoids it with me.
If you are proposing we ought to good point lets discuss that, yet you dont follow all of Leviticus, you propose the same-sex bit, so why would you expect others not to compromise Leviticus 20?
Indeed how would someone who does bestiality or incest respond to this, they may say why not when people propose same-sex sex.
The key here is that God's purpose is for man and woman Gen 2 Matt 19, which we keep explaning. So the other point is that some of these carry the death penalty in the law and some separation because of cleanliness defilement.
Note two things, sleeping with one's wife during her period is uncleanliness and in Jesus is now cleanliness, Mark 7 Matthew 15, this also carries separation in the law but not in life through Jesus Christ. Same-sex sex carries the death penalty in the law and remains error in the life through Jesus Christ.. hence Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc and 1 Cor 6, Romans 1 etc.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear Olliefranz
In fact I do avoid intimate contact with my wife during her period, or rather she avoids it with me.

That's fine. But a woman's niddah is more than just her period. She is in niddah from the first signs that her period is approaching until one full week after the last drop of blood has stopped flowing

If you are proposing we ought to good point lets discuss that, yet you dont follow all of Leviticus, you propose the same-sex bit, so why would you expect others not to compromise Leviticus 20?

First, as a life-long celibate, I have never violated any verse of Leviticus 18 or 20.

Second, that is exactly my point. Most people who condemn gays for violating verse 13 are themselves violating verse 18. The fact that your wife holds to a limited form of niddah abstinance does not change the fact that they are hypocrites. I don't expect them to obey Leviticus, but I do expect them to be consistant.

Indeed how would someone who does bestiality or incest respond to this, they may say why not when people propose same-sex sex.

You are right. Either all of Leviticus 20 applies, or none of it does. While I personally find bestiality disgusting, and would warn anyone involved in or considering incest about the medical dangers, I would not use Leviticus as part of my argument. The reasons for the Biblical bans and the medical reasons for discouraging the practices are not the same.

The key here is that God's purpose is for man and woman Gen 2 Matt 19, which we keep explaning. So the other point is that some of these carry the death penalty in the law and some separation because of cleanliness defilement.
Note two things, sleeping with one's wife during her period is uncleanliness and in Jesus is now cleanliness, Mark 7 Matthew 15, this also carries separation in the law but not in life through Jesus Christ. Same-sex sex carries the death penalty in the law and remains error in the life through Jesus Christ.. hence Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc and 1 Cor 6, Romans 1 etc.
[emphasis mine]

No, a woman who is in niddah is ritually unclean. A man who has sex with a woman in niddah hasmade a moral choice to disobey a command against doing so. Leviticus 20 makes no distinction between that sexually immoral decision and a decision to lie with a man. Leviticus 18 might be read as making such a distinction, but if it does, it is to say that violating the woman in niddah is more serious morally, not less.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Olliefranz

Second, that is exactly my point. Most people who condemn gays for violating verse 13 are themselves violating verse 18.

No they aren’t condemning gays, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and Jesus is the judge. Now if you read Leviticus 12, 15 and 18 you will see this is about uncleanliness which in Jesus Christ is no longer the case, (Mark 7, Matthew 15) Sexual immorality however is a violation against ones own body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.

I don't expect them to obey Leviticus, but I do expect them to be consistant.

Ok so which are you? Do you believe same-sex, bestially incest and not sleeping with a woman during her period, are all right, or all worng? Which?

No, a woman who is in niddah is ritually unclean. A man who has sex with a woman in niddah hasmade a moral choice to disobey a command against doing so. Leviticus 20 makes no distinction between that sexually immoral decision and a decision to lie with a man. Leviticus 18 might be read as making such a distinction, but if it does, it is to say that violating the woman in niddah is more serious morally, not less.

No you are looking at this from a niddah point of view, you need to understand the fulfilment of it through and in Christ Jesus. God's purpose is for man and woman Gen 2 Matt 19, which we keep explaning. So the other point is that some of these carry the death penalty in the law and some separation because of cleanliness defilement.
Note two things, sleeping with one's wife during her period is uncleanliness and in Jesus is now cleanliness, Mark 7 Matthew 15, this also carries separation in the law but not in life through Jesus Christ. Same-sex sex carries the death penalty in the law and remains error in the life through Jesus Christ.. hence Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc and 1 Cor 6, Romans 1 etc.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear Olliefranz
No they aren’t condemning gays, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and Jesus is the judge. Now if you read Leviticus 12, 15 and 18 you will see this is about uncleanliness which in Jesus Christ is no longer the case, (Mark 7, Matthew 15) Sexual immorality however is a violation against ones own body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.

I will accept your statement that you do not intend any judging or condemnation. But if you read the posts of some of the others here, they are proud to announce that yes, they are judging and condemning gays for the sin of being homosexual.

And although you say you do not intend to judge or condemn, a lot of your language is more hurtful than necessary to convey your position on the issue. Compare your posts with those of someone like Jet-a-Jockey or Imana.

Ok so which are you? Do you believe same-sex, bestially incest and not sleeping with a woman during her period, are all right, or all worng? Which?

From the point of view of the law of Moses, everything listed in Leviticus 20 is forbidden. Either we are under the Law for all of it, or we are freed from the Law in Christ for all of it. If you are not bound by the command not to lie with a woman in her niddah, then you can't turn around and say another Christian must still be bound by the command not to lie with another man.

When I look at incest, adultery, and bestiality and say that I believe the practices are wrong, I have to use reasons other than the Law of Moses. In these cases, we do have other reasons. Because the reasoning is different, the definition of incest is different. There are relationships that Leviticus considers incestuous that we do not, and vice-versa.

No you are looking at this from a niddah point of view, you need to understand the fulfilment of it through and in Christ Jesus. God's purpose is for man and woman Gen 2 Matt 19, which we keep explaning. So the other point is that some of these carry the death penalty in the law and some separation because of cleanliness defilement.

No, No, No!! The issue of a woman's uncleanliness is treated in Leviticus 15, a different chapter entirely. That is where it is mentioned that a woman must be separated because of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18 is not about the woman being unclean (except in that this is one reason behind the ban). It is about the immorality on the husband's part in having sex with a person which the Law of Moses forbids. The fact that there may come a time when it becomes permissible to have sex with that person is irrelevant. It is just like a married woman, or a sister-in-law is forbidden, but she may become available later because of a death or a divorce.

The fact that someone knows that his wife who is currently in her niddah will become availble later does not change the fact that he chooses to ignore the Law of Moses today. Nor does the reason that she is unavailable under the Law of Moses. Leviticus 20 makes no distinction in why the act of lying is forbidden, it is all against the Law of Moses.