Sin is Sin All Sins Are Equal.

[IamRedeemed]

God's moral laws are timeless and have not been done away with. For those who strive to believe that God's morals and ethics would change (which is a strange notion to begin with) but just in case, these things have been reiterated in the New Testament for those who would doubt.

If you try to say that the moral laws regarding sexual relations in Leviticus is no longer valid for GLBT,
then please tell us which of these also do not apply to others anymore in your opinion?

Leviticus chapter 18
4Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
21And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

[/color][/size]

Leviticus concerns a lot of the ritual law and there is a sexual content to it; two of the "gotcha" passages those who seek to harm LGBTs memorize are from there but also very strict prohibitions about heterosexual sex during a woman's menstrual period. I don't know if you are familiar with the white supremacist-survivalist Randy Weaver and his wife Vicki-she was killed in a shootout with federal agents. However, she was staying in a separate building from the rest of the family at the time due to their fundamentalist beliefs that due to her period she was obligated to segregate herself from the rest of the family. The ancients were extremely superstitious and the patriarchy was in awe of female bodily function which involved bleeding without being wounded or dying. Much of the taboos of that ancient society were due to their superstitions and their desire to distinguish themselves from the matriarchical cults of the surrounding areas. As one wag put it, "Jehovah and Eris got a messy divorce".

 

[Nadiine]

Right IAR.

Lev. 18 ARE MORAL LAWS - the law regarding sex during menstruation is CEREMONIAL/RELIGIOUS - they were not to have anything to do with touching blood or coming in contact with the flow of blood (ie. menstruation) as it is a means of ridding impurities; the male is coming in contact with what is unclean ceremonially.
(this is similar to the concept of all uncleanness in the area of male & female secretions/bodily fluids)

Anything dealing with blood is a ceremonial law/issue.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Right IAR.

Lev. 18 ARE MORAL LAWS - the law regarding sex during menstruation is CEREMONIAL/RELIGIOUS - they were not to have anything to do with touching blood or coming in contact with the flow of blood (ie. menstruation) as it is a means of ridding impurities; the male is coming in contact with what is unclean ceremonially.
(this is similar to the concept of all uncleanness in the area of male & female secretions/bodily fluids)

Anything dealing with blood is a ceremonial law/issue.

 

[OllieFranz]

Right IAR.

Lev. 18 ARE MORAL LAWS - the law regarding sex during menstruation is CEREMONIAL/RELIGIOUS - they were not to have anything to do with touching blood or coming in contact with the flow of blood (ie. menstruation) as it is a means of ridding impurities; the male is coming in contact with what is unclean ceremonially.
(this is similar to the concept of all uncleanness in the area of male & female secretions/bodily fluids)

Anything dealing with blood is a ceremonial law/issue.

Please re-read Leviticus 18. The "ritual" uncleanness of a woman's niddah is covered in Leviticus 15, but Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 both include a woman in niddah as one of the "morally" forbidden sexual relationships. In fact, in Leviticus 18 it is clearly grouped with incest and adultery, (all of which are together labelled "wicked") whereas "man-lying" is added later almost as an afterthought.

 

[onemessiah]

That's not the correct way of saying it.

If you break one commandment, you shatter the entire law..yes. But, the Bible makes it clear that God is not ignorant, and some sins are viewed as graver than others. (For example, King Ahab, the Bible says, did sins more evil than all the other Kings combined.)

I think you're missing the point.
What is the unforgivable sin? Blasphemy against god, correct? From that one small example, we clearly see that there is a distinction between sins...

However, the point of the OP is that regardless of the severity of the sin, even the smallest sin will keep you out of heaven. So if one sinner is chastising the other, seems kind of silly doesn't it?

 

[Texas Lynn]

God's moral laws are timeless and have not been done away with. For those who strive to believe that God's morals and ethics would change (which is a strange notion to begin with) but just in case, these things have been reiterated in the New Testament for those who would doubt.

If you try to say that the moral laws regarding sexual relations in Leviticus is no longer valid for GLBT,
then please tell us which of these also do not apply to others anymore in your opinion?

Depends on how you mean. I'm not a fundamentalist. I regard the Levitical laws as a snapshot of an ancient culture and little else.

As I suspected, the fundamentalists continue to be be highly selective in their literalism and defend it, but it just looks so ridiculous.

 

[Ave Maria]

You know, I want to believe that all sins are equal but then again I am honestly not sure if they are. After all, the Bible does speak of a sin unto death.

1Jo 5:16 KJV If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Therefore, I have to admit that the Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sins does make at least some sense to me.

That said, I personally do not see homosexuality or homosexual sex acts as a sin.

 

[IamRedeemed]

I posted the MORAL LAW for you from Lev. 18 in this post
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46796554&postcount=62

Please do as I asked and tell us which of these listed along with the
homosexuality are also done away with according to the proponents of such.

Please re-read Leviticus 18. The "ritual" uncleanness of a woman's niddah is covered in Leviticus 15, but Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 both include a woman in niddah as one of the "morally" forbidden sexual relationships. In fact, in Leviticus 18 it is clearly grouped with incest and adultery, (all of which are together labelled "wicked") whereas "man-lying" is added later almost as an afterthought.

 

[IamRedeemed]

You are right Paladin Girl. The only way sins are equal is spiritually in the manner that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and therefore ALL are in need of a savior and none are coming to the Father, except through Jesus. But it is clear from God's Word that some sins required an automatic death penalty with the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, while others had various and much less than death penalty requirements. There is however no Scripture I have come across yet, that says all sins are equal. I'd be happy to take a look if someone wants to show that to me.

You know, I want to believe that all sins are equal but then again I am honestly not sure if they are. After all, the Bible does speak of a sin unto death.

1Jo 5:16 KJV If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Therefore, I have to admit that the Catholic doctrine of mortal and venial sins does make at least some sense to me.

That said, I personally do not see homosexuality or homosexual sex acts as a sin.

 

[IamRedeemed]

And God has a much different regard than you do.
He also uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
Interpretation: God uses the things the world THINKS is foolish,
because they THINK that THEY ARE WISE.

But what does God's Word have to say about that?

Romans 1:22-24
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

So which of the other Moral Laws listed in Leviticus 18 do you
believe are also invalid today besides homosexual sex?

I posted them here: http://christianforums.com/showpost....4&postcount=62

[/color][/font][/size]

Depends on how you mean. I'm not a fundamentalist. I regard the Levitical laws as a snapshot of an ancient culture and little else.

As I suspected, the fundamentalists continue to be be highly selective in their literalism and defend it, but it just looks so ridiculous.

 

[Nadiine]

And God has a much different regard than you do.
He also uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
Interpretation: God uses the things the world THINKS is foolish,
because they THINK that THEY ARE WISE.

But what does God's Word have to say about that?

Romans 1:22-24
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

So which of the other Moral Laws listed in Leviticus 18 do you
believe are also invalid today besides homosexual sex?

I posted them here: http://christianforums.com/showpost....4&postcount=62

That's just the thing... the moral laws were present BEFORE the law was written. Murder was still evil (God banished Cain for it), and so was disobeying God's command not to eat the fruit. (God banished Adam & Eve for it).

Do we want to sift thru the moral laws & decide which ones are ok now (for our confused folk who like to make our lifestyles a relative & subjective buffet) - is incest ok now? beastiality? rape? molestation?
The law of beastiality is right under the homosexual law... so why is one removed and one still in tact???
(where did Jesus specifically lift certain moral laws from the OT law He promoted and obeyed as that was
His mission to fulfill law; teaching as a Rabbi). Jesus HAD to support all the law.
Leviticus spells the sexual sins out for us (which detail what God considers "fornication/immorality, lewdness, uncleanness, impurity" of the NT) - so are we going to choose the ones for homosexuals & "LIFT THOSE OUT", yet keep incest & rape & beastiality in effect becuz we those seem more wrong?

ALL the moral laws carried over & ALL of them were reiterated into the NT.
It's their civil & ceremonial/religious/sacrificial laws that were fulfilled by Christ and/or not necessary in other cultures as they were for the Jews in their culture and time.

It's very simple to pick out which laws remain in tact over us & which are fulfilled or unecessary. Christ fulfilled ALL the sacrificial/ceremonial laws by His death & resurrection, so those of us who have Him as our Lord, HAVE a sacrifice (HIMSELF) for our sin. The law of needing blood sacrifice is still fully in tact, just that Christ has replaced it by being our sacrifice.
We're no longer "unclean" by food, and other things, HE is our banner of righteousness over us.

The bottom line as I see it is that people want to live how they want, so they'll alter scripture teaching to suit their pet sins or cultural worldviews to fit in with the world and be loved by the world instead of pleasing God in obedience to His standards for children of God.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Exactly. People are so bent on believing the false teachers that play the tune they want to hear. Not one here who is proselytizing those preposterous, invalid and unsubstantiated claims has yet to point out to us which of the other moral laws are no longer in effect.

Not only did Jesus obey the moral law, He authored it and made it clearly known that Heaven and Earth will pass away but not one jot nor tittle of "the law" which is the moral law, would pass away until ALL things be fulfilled. (which means once sin and evil have been destroyed as we will no longer need it as those of us who are saved and heirs with Christ, will no longer be in corruptible vessels, we will be pure and holy as He is.)

These are the laws God is talking about, where the Scripture says
that He has written His laws on the tables of the hearts of men,
which is why those having not the law obey them knowing right from wrong.

EDIT TO ADD: Romans 2:14-16
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

That's just the thing... the moral laws were present BEFORE the law was written. Murder was still evil (God banished Cain for it), and so was disobeying God's command not to eat the fruit. (God banished Adam & Eve for it).

Do we want to sift thru the moral laws & decide which ones are ok now (for our confused folk who like to make our lifestyles a relative & subjective buffet) - is incest ok now? beastiality? rape? molestation?
The law of beastiality is right under the homosexual law... so why is one removed and one still in tact???
(where did Jesus specifically lift certain moral laws from the OT law He promoted and obeyed as that was
His mission to fulfill law; teaching as a Rabbi). Jesus HAD to support all the law.
Leviticus spells the sexual sins out for us (which detail what God considers "fornication/immorality, lewdness, uncleanness, impurity" of the NT) - so are we going to choose the ones for homosexuals & "LIFT THOSE OUT", yet keep incest & rape & beastiality in effect becuz we those seem more wrong?

ALL the moral laws carried over & ALL of them were reiterated into the NT.
It's their civil & ceremonial/religious/sacrificial laws that were fulfilled by Christ and/or not necessary in other cultures as they were for the Jews in their culture and time.

It's very simple to pick out which laws remain in tact over us & which are fulfilled or unecessary. Christ fulfilled ALL the sacrificial/ceremonial laws by His death & resurrection, so those of us who have Him as our Lord, HAVE a sacrifice (HIMSELF) for our sin. The law of needing blood sacrifice is still fully in tact, just that Christ has replaced it by being our sacrifice.
We're no longer "unclean" by food, and other things, HE is our banner of righteousness over us.

The bottom line as I see it is that people want to live how they want, so they'll alter scripture teaching to suit their pet sins or cultural worldviews to fit in with the world and be loved by the world instead of pleasing God in obedience to His standards for children of God.

 

[Texas Lynn]

And God has a much different regard than you do.

Of course there is no way for you to know that; like everything else you have posted this is merely your opinion, just as what I and everyoine else posts is merely our opinion. So it goes.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Not if you reject God's letter to mankind, which is the Scriptures.

It is almost atheistic sounding in nature to hear such a thing out of the mouth of a Christian. Do you not know the voice of your God that you would recognize it in the pages of His letter? Do you, as atheists do, reject the very facts that hundreds of years and in some cases thousands of years prior to events prophecy, (which is history written in advance), has been fulfilled over and over and even to the minutest detail as was written as I said hundreds and thousands of years beforehand?

Ask yourself, how unless it were breathed by God to the prophets, could they accomplish such things?

With men this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible.

Believe God and not man. Believe God's surmountable evidence of his
fingerprints, which are His signia on Scripture.

"Your Word is a light unto my path and a lamp unto my feet."
Psalm 119:105

No need to wander around in the dark.

Ask, Seek, Knock.



Originally Posted by Texas Lynn

Of course there is no way for you to know that; like everything else you have posted this is merely your opinion, just as what I and everyoine else posts is merely our opinion. So it goes.
​

 

[lace]

Everone has choices I believe-and People no right from wrong.
If my dad told me not to get in the car with strangers,(because of the dangers,)then Its my choice to listen, all not?
So yea everyone has a choice to listen to the warnings,and when we dont listen-We only bring hurt and pain & curses into our lives.
We cant save the world...........But Jesus can,but again its our choice weather to repent and go to the Lord-or-not..Sin is sin and they are all the same

 

[catlover]

Of course there is no way for you to know that; like everything else you have posted this is merely your opinion, just as what I and everyoine else posts is merely our opinion. So it goes.

There you go, the most dangerous Christian is one who believes they speak for God and use it as an excuse to spread discrimination.

Would Jesus be happy with this?

 

[lace]

In Ezekiel 9:9
The sin of the house of israel and judah is exceedingly great;
the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice.
They say the lord has forsaken the land;the lord dose not see.`
So i will not look on them with pity or spare them,but i will bring down on their
own heads what they have done.

Romans 5:12
Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin and in this way death came to all men,because all sinned.
For before the law was given,sin was in the world,but sin is not taken into account when their is no law.
Neverless death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.as did Adam,who was a pattern of the one to come.

(So we do have a choice)-when we sin we bring pain even disaster into our lifes.
Sin is the same-because sin brings death.
Even breaking a command brings death,which is a curse-(reap what you sow)
But lucky we have Christ,because he came to save the world-not to condem it.....

 

[Texas Lynn]

Everone has choices I believe-and People no right from wrong.
If my dad told me not to get in the car with strangers,(because of the dangers,)then Its my choice to listen, all not?
So yea everyone has a choice to listen to the warnings,and when we dont listen-We only bring hurt and pain & curses into our lives.
We cant save the world...........But Jesus can,but again its our choice weather to repent and go to the Lord-or-not..Sin is sin and they are all the same

To love another is not a sin.

 

[Texas Lynn]

There you go, the most dangerous Christian is one who believes they speak for God and use it as an excuse to spread discrimination.

Would Jesus be happy with this?

While Jesus said zero regarding homosexuality, he said much regarding arrogance, pride, and judgmentalism.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

While Jesus said zero regarding homosexuality, he said much regarding arrogance, pride, and judgmentalism.

I'm not interested in condemnation, but we all must first examine ourselves before we talk about such things so we can "see". That goes for everyone, of course.