The Homosexuality Issue

Shadowkat · Jul 13, 2018

A_Thinker said:
This sounds more like the Biblical Pharisees than it does Jesus ...

15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

It is good to go to find the lost sheep where they have wandered, but then you bring them back. You don't let that one lost sheep convince you to stay where they are. Jesus ate with sinners, yes. Does that mean, as the Pharisees probably were intimating, that Jesus approved of their sin because He ate with them? In truth, this is a misunderstanding. My posts were to advise caution against letting those who come in from the world change the church into the world. Those with whom Jesus ate were affected by Christ and His love, but Christ was not changed by their sin. If homosexuality is accepted into the Church along with the homosexual, then the Church becomes the world. It becomes nothing.
I can and have had conversations with homosexuals. I have worked with homosexuals. I have visited homosexuals in their home and have eaten with them, but I will never say anything to indicate that homosexuality is anything but sin. I have cared for them as lost sheep even though I have cause to hate them more than most, since I was raped by one of them as a child. I engage them to allow Christ to change them, but I will not allow them to compromise my Christianity. I am no Pharisee.

bekkilyn · Jul 13, 2018

dreadnought said:
We need to go back to Leviticus 18:22. If it's an abomination for a Jew to lie with a man, as he would a woman, it is an abomination for a Christian to do the same.

If we're going to base our arguments on Leviticus, what about Leviticus 19:19?
19 You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.

Or even Leviticus 19:33? (Considering how the U.S. is currently dealing with illegal immigration)
33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

I think if we're going to follow the laws of Leviticus, we need to follow *all* of them, not just pick and choose the laws we prefer to follow while ignoring the rest.

Just pushing back a little since both sides of this homosexuality debate can come up with scripture that appears to back up their claims. If only we were as enthusiastic about loving God and our neighbors, and making disciples for Jesus as we are about this topic.

dreadnought · Jul 14, 2018

bekkilyn said:
If we're going to base our arguments on Leviticus, what about Leviticus 19:19?
19 You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.

Or even Leviticus 19:33? (Considering how the U.S. is currently dealing with illegal immigration)
33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34 The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

I think if we're going to follow the laws of Leviticus, we need to follow *all* of them, not just pick and choose the laws we prefer to follow while ignoring the rest.

Just pushing back a little since both sides of this homosexuality debate can come up with scripture that appears to back up their claims. If only we were as enthusiastic about loving God and our neighbors, and making disciples for Jesus as we are about this topic.

We Christians have a new covenant with the Lord (Luke 22:20), so we don't have to observe all the religious rituals of our Jewish friends, but if something is an abomination for them, rest assured it's an abomination for us.

Dave-W · Jul 14, 2018

Halbhh said:
A church is a very good place for the lost sinner to come to -- they could hear the Words of Christ in a church -- and we should invite them to our parties and go to theirs, eat with them, in our houses and theirs, and help them learn about Christ.

A church building is NOT the Church. Sinners can certainly come into a church building, but cannot be in the Church until they are saved.

hedrick · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
We Christians have a new covenant with the Lord (Luke 22:20), so we don't have to observe all the religious rituals of our Jewish friends, but if something is an abomination for them, rest assured it's an abomination for us.

Lev uses "abomination" for a variety of things, not all of which we would currently consider abominations. In general the section of Lev describing homosexuality is called the Holiness Code, because it describes the writer's concept of holiness before God. The problem is that the writer doesn't distinguish between what we'd consider moral (primarily sexual) issues and food rules. A lot of the rules seem to be about boundaries: clean and unclean animals and food, sex with same and different genders. There's no reason to treat the rule against same-gender sex differently from the rule defining some animals as clean and others unclean (which according to Mark 7:19, Jesus cancelled). Luke 11:39-40 is a more pointed attack at the Holiness Code.

Here's all the uses of abomination in Lev:

Lev 7:18. [Lev 19:6 is nerarly identical] If any of the flesh of your sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable, nor shall it be credited to the one who offers it; it shall be an abomination, and the one who eats of it shall incur guilt.

Lev 11:13 These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: [list omitted]

Lev 18:22 [Lev 20:13 is nearly identical] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Lev 18:26 refers to "these abominations". Probably this is a whole section, though it's not clear what

Lev 20:25 You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.

dreadnought · Jul 14, 2018

hedrick said:
Lev uses "abomination" for a variety of things, not all of which we would currently consider abominations. In general the section of Lev describing homosexuality is called the Holiness Code, because it describes the writer's concept of holiness before God. The problem is that the writer doesn't distinguish between what we'd consider moral (primarily sexual) issues and food rules. A lot of the rules seem to be about boundaries: clean and unclean animals and food, sex with same and different genders. There's no reason to treat the rule against same-gender sex differently from the rule defining some animals as clean and others unclean (which according to Mark 7:19, Jesus cancelled). Luke 11:39-40 is a more pointed attack at the Holiness Code.

Here's all the uses of abomination in Lev:

Lev 7:18. [Lev 19:6 is nerarly identical] If any of the flesh of your sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable, nor shall it be credited to the one who offers it; it shall be an abomination, and the one who eats of it shall incur guilt.

Lev 11:13 These you shall regard as detestable among the birds. They shall not be eaten; they are an abomination: [list omitted]

Lev 18:22 [Lev 20:13 is nearly identical] You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

Lev 18:26 refers to "these abominations". Probably this is a whole section, though it's not clear what

Lev 20:25 You shall therefore make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; you shall not bring abomination on yourselves by animal or by bird or by anything with which the ground teems, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean.

The Lord's commandments were meant to keep us out of trouble. If the Lord says something is an abomination, I wouldn't be telling people there is nothing wrong with it.

hedrick · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
The Lord's commandments were meant to keep us out of trouble. If the Lord says something is an abomination, I wouldn't be telling people there is nothing wrong with it.

Not even if Jesus does? Jesus specifically rejects the food laws, but Lev twice says violating them is abomination.

bekkilyn · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
We Christians have a new covenant with the Lord (Luke 22:20), so we don't have to observe all the religious rituals of our Jewish friends, but if something is an abomination for them, rest assured it's an abomination for us.

You really need to have a better argument than this one.

Dave-W · Jul 14, 2018

hedrick said:
There's no reason to treat the rule against same-gender sex differently from the rule defining some animals as clean and others unclean (which according to Mark 7:19, Jesus cancelled). Luke 11:39-40 is a more pointed attack at the Holiness Code.

As a Jewish man "born under the Law," if He EVER in any way shape or form taught against any part of the Law, it would have been a sin and would have disqualified Him from being our sacrifice.

Dave-W · Jul 14, 2018

hedrick said:
Not even if Jesus does? Jesus specifically rejects the food laws, but Lev twice says violating them is abomination.

I submit your understanding of the issue is flawed.

dreadnought · Jul 14, 2018

hedrick said:
Not even if Jesus does? Jesus specifically rejects the food laws, but Lev twice says violating them is abomination.

You won't find anything in the entire Bible that condones homosexuality. Just the opposite is true.

dreadnought · Jul 14, 2018

bekkilyn said:
You really need to have a better argument than this one.

All you have to do is read Leviticus 18:22. The Lord's commandments are meant to keep us out of trouble. I'd obey them, if I were you.

bekkilyn · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
All you have to do is read Leviticus 18:22. The Lord's commandments are meant to keep us out of trouble. I'd obey them, if I were you.

If our salvation is based on obedience to the laws in Leviticus, then why are we ignoring all of the other laws in that book?

dreadnought · Jul 14, 2018

bekkilyn said:
If our salvation is based on obedience to the laws in Leviticus, then why are we ignoring all of the other laws in that book?

We are under a new covenant (Luke 22:20). However, if something is an abomination for the Jews, it is also an abomination for us.

bekkilyn · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
We are under a new covenant (Luke 22:20). However, if something is an abomination for the Jews, it is also an abomination for us.

What of all the dietary restrictions? Many of those were specifically described as abominations to the Lord. So much for shrimp and lobster, eh?

Or are you suggesting that we are under the new covenant except for the sole exception of Leviticus 18:22?

ubicaritas · Jul 14, 2018

dreadnought said:
The homosexuality issue is apparently about to come to a head in the United Methodist Church, or at least, begin to come to a head. My understanding is that it well be addressed at the General Conference (an event that occurs every four years) in February.

The answer seems very easy: United Methodist pastors will refrain from teaching that homosexuality is not a sin, but the church will welcome homosexuals into their congregations.

Why a group of caring, loving Christians cannot agree to this, I'll never know.

I suspect they will try to find a way to accommodate as many different perspectives as possible short of categorically prohibiting gay pastors.

This is easier to do in a congregationalist structure such as what the ELCA, Episcopalians, or other churches have. It may be harder in the conexional system that Methodists have.

dreadnought · Jul 15, 2018

bekkilyn said:
What of all the dietary restrictions? Many of those were specifically described as abominations to the Lord. So much for shrimp and lobster, eh?

Or are you suggesting that we are under the new covenant except for the sole exception of Leviticus 18:22?

If it's an abomination for Jews, it is an abomination for all of us.

dreadnought · Jul 15, 2018

ubicaritas said:
I suspect they will try to find a way to accommodate as many different perspectives as possible short of categorically prohibiting gay pastors.

This is easier to do in a congregationalist structure such as what the ELCA, Episcopalians, or other churches have. It may be harder in the conexional system that Methodists have.

I'm not crazy about homosexual and lesbian pastors, but I might be able to live with it if they didn't preach, or hint, that homosexuality isn't a sin.

S.O.J.I.A. · Jul 15, 2018

we certainly should welcome all to sit down and take in a sermon at a church, though I would be against anyone becoming a communicate member being in unrepentant open sin.

ubicaritas · Jul 15, 2018

dreadnought said:
I'm not crazy about homosexual and lesbian pastors, but I might be able to live with it if they didn't preach, or hint, that homosexuality isn't a sin.

What about if congregations had the choice in what kind of pastor they got?

In the ELCA, we call our own pastors. Though we have anti-discrimination rules in our constitution, most congregations, for instance, still call predominantly men to serve as pastors. And congregations that do not feel called to have gay pastors are not forced to do so.

The Homosexuality Issue

Active Member

Contemplative Christian

Lip service isn't really service.

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Senior Veteran

Lip service isn't really service.

Senior Veteran

Contemplative Christian

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Lip service isn't really service.

Lip service isn't really service.

Contemplative Christian

Lip service isn't really service.

Contemplative Christian

sinning boldly

Lip service isn't really service.

Lip service isn't really service.

Dynamic UNO

sinning boldly

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency