Does the Bible Justify Homosexuality

20 03 2007

Filed under: Homosexuality, Christianity, Bible

Working on the road Tuesday and Wednesday. I came across this great article and since this topic is one that is dealt with often on this blog, I felt that it explains why a homosexual cannot use the Bible to justify sexual sin.

An article appeared in the March 10, 2007 issue of the Marietta (Georgia) Daily Journal with the title “Homosexuals try to find place in Christianity.” Substitute the words “thieves,” “adulterers,” “liars,” “drunkards,” “murderers,” and any other group of sinners, and you have a good description of who makes up the church of Jesus Christ. If you are not a sinner, then you are not a Christian. Christianity is not for perfect people. The question is, Can a person roll his sin into his new life in Christ? Can a murderer, for example, continue to murder and still claim to be a Christian? The Bible says no: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1–2).

Of course, being a Christian does not mean that we become sinless and never struggle with old and new sins. It does mean that we acknowledge our sinful failings and work to overcome them through repentance and calling on God for the necessary spiritual help. This was Jesus’ message to the woman caught in adultery: “From now on sin no more” (John 8:11). What’s implied by Jesus’ admonition is for the woman to establish new relationships based on biblical precepts, the very precepts she was violating. The same is true for the Samaritan woman (John 4:39). It’s not enough to say no to bad behavior. The bad behavior must be replaced with good behavior.

But what about homosexuality not being a sin because it’s not described as such in the Bible?

The Bible doesn’t have to say anything about homosexuality and homosexual marriage since the established standard is a male and female sexual and marital relationship. If I say to my children, “stay in the house while you’re dad is fixing the roof,” I don’t have to follow this up by saying “don’t go outside.” The positive standard implies the negative prohibition. The speed limit sign that says “55” includes any speed over “55” without ever saying don’t go faster than “55 miles per hour.” Based on the Genesis account alone, there is no need for a single verse condemning homosexuality. Affirming the heterosexual relationship—one man with one woman—condemns the homosexual relationship by definition. With the norm established, any deviation is by definition abnormal.

But it is mentioned in the Bible: Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17–18; Judges 19:16–30; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9; Jude 7

What about Jesus not saying anything about homosexuality? Does his lack of discussion of a certain issue give a green light to sin?

Jesus doesn’t say anything about rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, or tripping blind people, and yet these practices are condemned today. God’s Word is more than the words of Jesus in red.

Many homosexuals point to Leviticus 20:9. Based on this verse, it tells us that “you are supposed to stone your kids if they sass you.” There are other such instructions to the Israelites that are no longer practiced today by Christians, but there are still two problems with this line of reasoning.

First, let’s assume that the death penalty sanction is no longer applicable under the New Covenant. Does this mean that sassing parents becomes a virtue in the NT? So even if the sanction is no longer in force, the command not to curse one’s parents still is since Jesus links this behavior to the fifth commandment. In a similar way, we could argue that while the death penalty no longer applies to public displays of same-sex behavior, the prohibition still exists similar to the way the prohibition about cursing one’s parents is still in effect.

Second, would it matter if Jesus had said something about homosexuality? The OT says a number of things about same-sex behavior, and NT writers do as well, and these are deemed as inconsequential and non-applicable to the current debate by homosexuals who attempt to justify their behavior by an appeal to the Bible. So would anything Jesus said make any difference? A further problem: Jesus actually quotes and applies Leviticus 20:9 in the NT: “For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’” (Mark 7:10). So if you’re going to use Jesus in one case (He doesn’t say anything about homosexuality), then why not in the NT application of Leviticus 20:9?

No matter what way the subject is approached, there is nothing in the Bible that can be used to support homosexual behavior. Homosexuals who claim to believe the Bible should take comfort in Paul’s words: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9b–11).

The only argument that this article does not deal directly with is the far-reaching “born that way” stance.

Of course, homosexuals take the same route as evolutionists by discounting the Bible and its account of how God created them Male and Female and claiming that without “scientific,” “peer-reviewed” evidence, homosexuals are born that way.

Going hand in hand with that argument is the side-kick question, “If people aren’t born homosexual, why in the world would they choose a lifestyle of scorn, ridicule, and hate.”

Why do some people choose to murder? To commit incest? Rape? Pedophilia? Who knows? We can evaluate their choices, cross-reference that with their upbringing, background, education, etc and make scientific reasoning of until the cows come home, but it is still sin. Some people make a choice to commit these sins, homosexuality included, others don’t.

The key to being a Christian is to repent of your sin and seek to change your behavior. But to do that, a homosexual must see his sin.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

59 responses

29 07 2008
sgsnow

Jesus said nothing, not one word, about homosexuals. For those of you who insist that this does not matter, that the Bible is somehow clear elsewhere about the evilness of homosexuality, here are some questions.

Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament EXCEPT the rule against homosexual intercourse?

Why didn’t He distinguish between His forgiving the woman brought to him in adultery ( ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ ) and His wanting to continue to hold homosexuality against people?

Why didn’t He say anything about how homosexual marriage would defile the sanctity of the relationship of man and woman?

Why didn’t He say anything?

Did He just keep forgetting to mention it?

Of course, there are apparent criticisms of homosexuality in the Bible. But do you have any idea what they mean, or do you just use them as a fig leaf for your own prejudices?

To paraphrase Rowland Croucher,

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexual activity. But lending money at interest, having sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period etc. are also condemned; slavery and polygamy are condoned in the Bible. How consistent do you want to be?

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, are you sure they’re about homosexual practice? Or do they talk about promiscuity and prostitution – sex for payment?

“What about Sodom!”, you say?
You should perhaps know that the issue was gang-rape(as in Judges 19-21) , not homosexuality. Every time Sodom is referred to in the OT and apocryphal books – and in the one Gospel reference, Luke 10:10-12 – it’s never in connection with homosexuality. In Ezekiel 16:49 for example, Sodom’s sins are pride, materialism, idleness or being uncaring.

Please remember, dear Christians, about what Peter (4:17) said about the sin of judgment beginning in the house of God.

29 07 2008
Truth and Reason

sgsnow, your questions are answered in my post. Furthermore, your questions are not truly answers to the questions that the post reveals.

All that aside though, Jesus also never discusses pedophilia or bestiality. But those are recognized as sin and unlawful. In cases where the bible does not speak directly, we look to what it does speak on. Jesus gave us God’s design for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6:

4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

From that, it’s pretty straight forward that anything outside this boundary is sin.

30 07 2008
sgsnow

TR,

You write:

“The Bible doesn’t have to say anything about homosexuality and homosexual marriage since the established standard is a male and female sexual and marital relationship.”

No offense, but this makes no sense. You seem rather obsessed about homosexuality as a sin. Why? Jesus said nothing, and in fact denounced divorce; it is forbidden in both the OT and NT. Why did he bother to do that? Why condemn divorce but say nothing about homosexuality? So, your “established standard” does not exist in that case, apparently–he repeated one, and ignored the other.

And by the way, do you get so hot and bothered about the sin of divorce? No, of course not.

You cite OT sources. Fine, agreed, the OT seemed to have some critical things about homosexuality. But did you hear? Levitical Law was replaced by the New Covenant. Or do you keep kosher–no shellfish? No mixed fabrics? You really think you should be killed if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating? You need to read more about the Good News that Christ brought.

I offered you NT citations, which you ignored. Please go to your Bible, and tell me how the New Testament clearly labels homosexuality as a sin. You may ignore what He said about divorce, if you wish, but picking and choosing like that is never a good idea. Accept the whole message, or none of it.

“What about Jesus not saying anything about homosexuality? Does his lack of discussion of a certain issue give a green light to sin?
Jesus doesn’t say anything about rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, or tripping blind people, and yet these practices are condemned today.”

Now you are just being silly. Have I missed something, or do many good Christians argue that tripping people–or raping them–is allowed by Scripture? Of course not. Nothing that you mention is in dispute. What is disputed is homosexuality, which, of course, is consensual and so quite different from rape or tripping. This is basic stuff.

“The OT says a number of things about same-sex behavior, and NT writers do as well, and these are deemed as inconsequential and non-applicable to the current debate by homosexuals who attempt to justify their behavior by an appeal to the Bible. ”

I hope you are enjoying that kosher diet. Hard to believe that you willing to stone people to death, though. You mention NT writers. Please cite them. I think you don’t know your Bible from the TV Guide.

30 07 2008
The Bible and homosexuality « two-bit words

[…] The guy who runs “Truth and Reason” responded similarly […]

30 07 2008
Truth and Reason

sgsnow, I read some of your post on your blog and saw that you are trolling blogs, apparently trying to start heated arguments by insulting other bloggers with your copied work. Now, seems to me your, or should I say the other authors’, entire argument is based on this:

Why condemn divorce but say nothing about homosexuality? So, your “established standard” does not exist in that case, apparently–he repeated one, and ignored the other.

Throw out all the OT and NT scriptures on homosexuality. Every one. I don’t need them if you don’t. Look again at my passage from Matthew that posted yesterday. Read every word:

Matthew 19:4-6:
4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

By setting the standard for marriage, it’s not hard to recognize that anything outside of this is sin.

As far as divorce goes, I am as adamantly opposed to Christians divorcing as I am homosexuality, as well as two heterosexuals living together outside of marriage. It’s all the same sin. But you must admit, there is much more activism going on for justifying homosexuality than there is for Christians to divorce under any circumstance or live together outside a marriage relationship.

Besides, divorce is allowed under two circumstances: abuse or infidelity. You don’t see homosexuality allowed under two circumstances: if the two love one another as a man and woman do or to obtain health benefits. LOL

And since you dragged Levitical law into this, allow me to educate you about the bible since the authors you copied your answers from obviously don’t know this: When Jesus established the New Covenant, He abolished the dietary etc related laws, but the moral ones remain valid. And by the way, I find it contradictory that homosexuals will justify their sin as a moral issue when attacking the bible, but turn it into a political issue when involved in political activism under the facade of a civil rights issue. This is nothing more than a smoke screen. But it’s not really in the context for this argument. I just wanted to point that out so you could pass the word along.

Bottom line: When Jesus set the standard for marriage, He drew the line that is sin if it’s crossed.

30 07 2008
sgsnow

“I read some of your post on your blog and saw that you are trolling blogs, apparently trying to start heated arguments by insulting other bloggers with your copied work.”

True, I was in a bad mood. As for the quotes, I made very clear who wrote what. You are right, I wrote very little of it. Then again, you are unable to respond to any of it, regardless of authorship.

“Throw out all the OT and NT scriptures on homosexuality. Every one. I don’t need them if you don’t.”

There are so few of them, it won’t matter if we put them aside for the moment.

You quote Matthew 19:4-6 ″The Creator ‘made them male and female,”
and then say “By setting the standard for marriage, it’s not hard to recognize that anything outside of this is sin.”

“It is not hard to recognize”, yes, if you already know what you want the Bible to say, and are willing to interpret passages to suit your own bigotry. But is that really the best you can do?

Mark discussed marriage. So if you want me to agree that Jesus thought little of same-sex marriage, fine. You win that point, for the purposes of argument.

But then you accept homosexuality among the unmarried, no? Why not? Run out of Bible verses?

I don’t know why I am surprised that there is just no substance behind this Christian obsession with homosexuality as a sin. There is simply nothing there except finding what you want to find in the Bible to suit your own personal needs.

“And since you dragged Levitical law into this, allow me to educate you about the bible since the authors you copied your answers from obviously don’t know this: When Jesus established the New Covenant, He abolished the dietary etc related laws, but the moral ones remain valid.”

Wow. Just the dietary laws, eh? This is a fascinating piece of original Biblical research. What is it based on, besides your wishful thinking? Just give us a teeny-tiny citation.

So out with the dietary laws– but we still have stoning to death, and eye-for-an-eye as punishment? Jesus specifically argued against this. Did you know that?

30 07 2008
Truth and Reason

But then you accept homosexuality among the unmarried, no?

Actually yes, but it’s because any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered sin. That means heterosexual or homosexual. If you can’t marry biblically, you can’t participate in sexual activities biblically.

Just the dietary laws, eh? Just give us a teeny-tiny citation.

I said dietary etc. “The moral ones are still applicable today” was the only relevant part of my argument. But if you refuse to research this for yourself (which you’ve already shown you don’t), I’ll provide it for you. The old covenant was between God and the Jews. Gentiles were never included. That takes care of the majority of Christians. For the Jews, because the old covenant was with a nation, it contains rules for individual conduct, and an immense amount of law – civil law, criminal law, military law, moral and religious law. Which much of America’s laws are ironically based on. The new covenant is concerned mostly with individual conduct because it was designed to be open to everyone who accepts Christ, not just the Jewish nation. There are some rules for the governance of the church, and a very small amount on politics.

30 07 2008
sgsnow

I take your point on unmarried sex, and have no argument with it.

I would still love to see you offer some reason why only the “dietary etc.” Levitical laws were superseded. I think you are wrong on that one.

Thanks for the conversation.

30 07 2008
Truth and Reason

I think you are wrong on that one.

So then you have no argument on recognizing homosexuality as sin. The dietary argument is irrelevant in that case. Based on the creation in Genesis and Jesus’ words in Matthew, if I don’t need Levitical law to defend homosexuality as a sin, you can’t say I’m wrong on it.

You’re welcome and thank you as well.

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==When Jesus established the New Covenant, He abolished the dietary etc related laws, but the moral ones remain valid. ==

Besides, Jesus said that it isn’t what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, rather what comes out of the mouth, that outta the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks; and, as God, He said that death and life are in the power of the tongue and that they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.

Further, Acts 10, I think, dispenses with dietary stuff, though Romans 1 reiterates the “abomination” on homosexuality.

Of course, those who reject Jesus are still under the Law, not under Grace.

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Jesus said nothing, not one word, about homosexuals.==

Oh???

Jesus was God on Earth. Whatever God said, Jesus said.

God said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.” Thus, Jesus said it.

== Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament…==

He didn’t.

==… EXCEPT the rule against homosexual intercourse?==

A man cannot have sexual intercourse with another man. A biological impossibility.

==Why didn’t He distinguish between His forgiving the woman brought to him in adultery ( ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ ) and His wanting to continue to hold homosexuality against people?==

A phony, made-up question.

==Why didn’t He say anything about how homosexual marriage would defile the sanctity of the relationship of man and woman?==

As God, He did.

God says that the only, Godly relationship, in matrimony, is between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Nowhere does God say that so-called “same-sex ‘marriage'” is also Godly.

==Why didn’t He say anything?==

He said plenty. You missed it.

==Did He just keep forgetting to mention it?==

Those who have faith didn’t missed it.

==Of course, there are apparent criticisms of homosexuality in the Bible. But do you have any idea what they mean, or do you just use them as a fig leaf for your own prejudices?==

We know what they mean.

==Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexual activity. But lending money at interest, having sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period etc. are also condemned; slavery and polygamy are condoned in the Bible. How consistent do you want to be?==

Did Croucher also mention that there is a difference between what God requires and what Jewish law requires? Did he forget to mention that, in some cases, God is talking to Man, and, in other cases, God is talking to the Jews, and that there’s a difference between Commandment, commandment, Law and law, Statute and statute, Ordinance and ordinance, and that God knows the difference between Jewish law and custom and His Law?

While God laid down the Law, He also required the stubborn rebels to follow their own law, to be perfect in order to be saved. It is the same today for those who reject His offer of Reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

==As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, are you sure they’re about homosexual practice? Or do they talk about promiscuity and prostitution – sex for payment?==

They’re against the practice of homosexuality which is,according to God, an abomination.

==“What about Sodom!”, you say?
You should perhaps know that the issue was gang-rape(as in Judges 19-21) , not homosexuality.==

And, yet, Lot offered his daughters to the sodomites and the sodomites refused, preferring the “men” who were angels. If they wanted mere gang rape, they wouldn’t have refused the women. No, they were after the “men.”

== Every time Sodom is referred to in the OT and apocryphal books – and in the one Gospel reference, Luke 10:10-12 – it’s never in connection with homosexuality.==

Except in the original reference whee the sodomites expressed hunger for the “men” and refused Lot’s offer of his daughters. THAT set the standard.

== In Ezekiel 16:49 for example, Sodom’s sins are pride, materialism, idleness or being uncaring.==

And, yet, in the original reference, the sodomites told Lot that they wanted the “men,” not his daughters. The rest of Scripture on the subject must be read in THAT light.

==Please remember, dear Christians, about what Peter (4:17) said about the sin of judgment beginning in the house of God.==

Where does the Word of God say that the Righteous in faith must not judge Righteously — that is, according to the Word of God.

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==TR, You write: “The Bible doesn’t have to say anything about homosexuality and homosexual marriage since the established standard is a male and female sexual and marital relationship.”

No offense, but this makes no sense.==

To scoffers, nothing that explains, by the Word of God, that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination” makes any sense since those who claim to be homosexual, their supporters and activists are so Hell-bent on establishing their agenda for the rest of us.

If it were to make sense to them, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

==You seem rather obsessed about homosexuality as a sin.==

You seem rather obsessed and defensive about the fact that God said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.”

What YOU call “obsessed” is actually love for God, through Jesus. Our “want-to’s” have changed with our being born again. We understand that you don’t know the difference.

== Why?==

Because we love God and His Goodness.

However, as He said, the darkness doesn’t comprehend the Light.

== Jesus said nothing, and in fact denounced divorce; it is forbidden in both the OT and NT. Why did he bother to do that? Why condemn divorce but say nothing about homosexuality?==

This is the trouble when scoffers try to decipher the Word of God through mental comprehension. They fail utterly. Hebrews 4:2 explains it.

Jesus was God on Earth. Whatever God said, Jesus said. Therefore, Jesus, as God, said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.”

Jesus was the Word in the flesh, and the Word says that the only Godly, matrimonial unit is comprised of the man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. There is no Godly, matrimonial unit made up of a man and a man, nor a woman and a woman.

==… apparently–he repeated one, and ignored the other. ==

Already explained above.

==… do you get so hot and bothered about the sin of divorce? No, of course not. ==

Don’t you get tired of being wrong?

==You cite OT sources. Fine, agreed, the OT seemed to have some critical things about homosexuality. But did you hear? Levitical Law was replaced by the New Covenant. ==

That applies only to those who do not reject Jesus. Those who are not under Grace are still under Law.

==Or do you keep kosher–no shellfish?==

Jesus said that one is defiled, not by what goes into the mouth, rather by what comes out of the mouth.

== No mixed fabrics? You really think you should be killed if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating? You need to read more about the Good News that Christ brought. ==

Only those who are born again have access to what Christ brought.

Scoffers fail to understand one, important thing:

The Law was given to Man to show him that he cannot do the entire Law, that he needs Grace. You cannot say that you are under Grace and continue willfully violate the Law of God against what we now call “homosexuality.”

Since what we now call “homosexuality” is not a creation of God, it is a creation of individuals who choose to go homosexual, and, thus, is an act not out of ignorance, rather out of willfulness.

==Please go to your Bible, and tell me how the New Testament clearly labels homosexuality as a sin.==

Romans 1 reiterates Leviticus on the question of what we now call “homosexuality.” Acts 10, however, for those who are born again, rescinds, for example, Jewish dietary regulations and other Jewish rules of customs.

==You may ignore what He said about divorce, if you wish, but picking and choosing like that is never a good idea. Accept the whole message, or none of it. ==

The unfortunate things for scoffers is that those of us who are born again understand that proper interpretation of the Word of God must be according to Scripture upon Scripture. That principle is on our side.

==What is disputed is homosexuality, which, of course, is consensual…==

So are a lot of things. So what?

Two persons make an agreement that the one will kill the other. It is consensual. Yet, it’s illegal, both to God and to Man.

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Mark discussed marriage. So if you want me to agree that Jesus thought little of same-sex marriage, fine. You win that point, for the purposes of argument.

But then you accept homosexuality among the unmarried, no? Why not? Run out of Bible verses? ==

Not at all.

God says that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.”

Everything that God says throughout His entire Word refers to the Godly, matrimonial unit as being between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. There is nothing about so-called “same-sex ‘unions'” being Godly.

==I don’t know why I am surprised that there is just no substance behind this Christian obsession with homosexuality as a sin.==

That’s a fake construction. You’re not surprised. That’s because you have been groomed by agenda to believe that anything we say against homosexuality is, patently, without substance. That’s because you don’t accept the Word of God as substance.

==There is simply nothing there except finding what you want to find in the Bible to suit your own personal needs. ==

There is nothing there that you will except, anyway. Not very scientific to exclude information you don’t like.

==“And since you dragged Levitical law into this, allow me to educate you about the bible since the authors you copied your answers from obviously don’t know this: When Jesus established the New Covenant, He abolished the dietary etc related laws, but the moral ones remain valid.”

Wow. Just the dietary laws, eh? This is a fascinating piece of original Biblical research. What is it based on, besides your wishful thinking? Just give us a teeny-tiny citation. ==

Acts 10.

==So out with the dietary laws– but we still have stoning to death, and eye-for-an-eye as punishment? Jesus specifically argued against this. Did you know that?==

Those who are born again are under Grace, not under Law.

Those who are not born again are under Law, not under Grace.

2 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I would still love to see you offer some reason why only the “dietary etc.” Levitical laws were superseded. I think you are wrong on that one. ==

Jesus said that a man is defiled by what comes out of his mouth, not what goes in his mouth. That counts only for those who are born again. Those who reject Jesus — that is, God’s offer of Reconciliation — are defiled by both.

2 08 2008
sgsnow

hey there Mr. Incredible,

==Jesus said nothing, not one word, about homosexuals.==

“Jesus was God on Earth. Whatever God said, Jesus said. God said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.” Thus, Jesus said it.”

Mr. Incredible, I see your theological point. But as to our debate, where does God say this, exactly? Through the mouth of Paul, perhaps?

There is no evidence from the Bible or otherwise that Jesus taught condemnation of homosexuality. Aren’t you just a teeny bit curious as to why? I think many lurkers out there are.

== Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament…==

“He didn’t.”

Mr. I, all Christians need to be informed of this theological scoop. Call the New York Times!

I can’t eat shrimp from the barbie! What about my bacon cheeseburgers? This is bad. . .

==… EXCEPT the rule against homosexual intercourse?==

“A man cannot have sexual intercourse with another man. A biological impossibility.”

Mr. I, you perhaps are an authority on some things. Is this one of them?

Or are you just avoiding discussing the Bible?

==Why didn’t He distinguish between His forgiving the woman brought to him in adultery ( ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ ) and His wanting to continue to hold homosexuality against people?==

“A phony, made-up question.”

Goodness me, that must be one you can’t answer.

==Why didn’t He say anything about how homosexual marriage would defile the sanctity of the relationship of man and woman?==

“As God, He did.”

Show me where. But in any case, as Jesus, He did not. Why?

“God says that the only, Godly relationship, in matrimony, is between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Nowhere does God say that so-called “same-sex ‘marriage’” is also Godly.”

That is the only verse you have to support your view that the NT condemns homosexuality? I am disappointed, but not surprised.

==Why didn’t He say anything?==

“He said plenty. You missed it.”

Ah. Where?

==Did He just keep forgetting to mention it?==

“Those who have faith didn’t missed it.”

Ah. We’ll just take your word for it.

==Of course, there are apparent criticisms of homosexuality in the Bible. But do you have any idea what they mean, or do you just use them as a fig leaf for your own prejudices?==

“We know what they mean.”

Ah. Care to share with us all exactly how you acquired this knowledge?

==Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexual activity. But lending money at interest, having sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period etc. are also condemned; slavery and polygamy are condoned in the Bible. How consistent do you want to be?==

“Did Croucher also mention that there is a difference between what God requires and what Jewish law requires? Did he forget to mention that, in some cases, God is talking to Man, and, in other cases, God is talking to the Jews, and that there’s a difference between Commandment, commandment, Law and law, Statute and statute, Ordinance and ordinance, and that God knows the difference between Jewish law and custom and His Law?”

Fascinating, but now you are making stuff up to patch the holes in your argument.

==As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, are you sure they’re about homosexual practice? Or do they talk about promiscuity and prostitution – sex for payment?==

“They’re against the practice of homosexuality which is, according to God, an abomination.”

I think I’ve got your drift, now, yes, but where did he say this?

As for Sodom, we will agree to disagree.

Thanks for the scriptural reply.

2 08 2008
sgsnow

Hi again Mr. I,

== Jesus said nothing, and in fact denounced divorce; it is forbidden in both the OT and NT. Why did he bother to do that? Why condemn divorce but say nothing about homosexuality?==

“This is the trouble when scoffers try to decipher the Word of God through mental comprehension. They fail utterly. Hebrews 4:2 explains it.”

In other words, you have no idea. That’s kinda what I thought.

==… apparently–he repeated one, and ignored the other. ==

“Already explained above.”

I must have missed it. I just saw a rather lame citation of Hebrews.

==… do you get so hot and bothered about the sin of divorce? No, of course not. ==

“Don’t you get tired of being wrong?”

Again no answer? Why did you bother responding at all?

==You cite OT sources. Fine, agreed, the OT seemed to have some critical things about homosexuality. But did you hear? Levitical Law was replaced by the New Covenant. ==

“That applies only to those who do not reject Jesus. Those who are not under Grace are still under Law.”

Okay, so Christians are not bound by those laws. Which was, of course, my point. Thanks.

==Or do you keep kosher–no shellfish?==

“Jesus said that one is defiled, not by what goes into the mouth, rather by what comes out of the mouth.”

Right, no Levitical laws, so your anti-homosexual verse goes out the window. Thanks.

== No mixed fabrics? You really think you should be killed if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating? You need to read more about the Good News that Christ brought. ==

“Only those who are born again have access to what Christ brought.”

Right, so no more Levitical abominations.

Mr. I, you are really an ally of mine, just pretending to argue with me! You clever dog!

==Please go to your Bible, and tell me how the New Testament clearly labels homosexuality as a sin.==

“Romans 1 reiterates Leviticus on the question of what we now call “homosexuality.” Acts 10, however, for those who are born again, rescinds, for example, Jewish dietary regulations and other Jewish rules of customs.”

Finally! You finally got a NT citation! Very, very good work.

Yeah, Romans is a is difficult for me to explain. Here are two possible answers. Three, actually.

“Paul didn’t write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship. Paul says we all fall short of the glory of God. You don’t find Paul saying that all homosexuals are going to hell; he says nobody has it right.”

“This is the tough one. I think one doesn’t get around this. It’s the only place in the New Testament where there’s any extensive discussion of homosexual relations. In Romans, there’s no question that Paul thinks certain kinds of homosexual behavior are a result of the idolatry of the pagan world.”

Mr. I, here is my point, much repeated. Romans is Paul, not Jesus. Paul—who said women must be quiet in church, among other things. Why was Jesus silent on this?

But yes, full props on the Romans citation.

As for Acts, does it really say that only the laws that Mr. I does not like are rescinded?

Arguing about consensual sex, you write: “Two persons make an agreement that the one will kill the other. It is consensual. Yet, it’s illegal, both to God and to Man.”

Oh, my. That is not a good answer. It is not consensual for the dead man, is it now?

cheers

2 08 2008
sgsnow

Hi again, all,

Sorry to keep talking and talking and talking. My wife is watching TV and I am bored.

But I made a mistake, above. Mr. I wrote:

== Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament…==

I thought mistakenly that he was referring to Leviticus. Yes, you are right, not all the Laws–10 Commandments, of course, we still got–just the Levitical prohibitions.

And when I got nailed on Romans? Finally? I meant to say that those two quotes are by different people, giving two points of view on the passage in question. That wasn’t clear the way it was written.

Finally, I will shut up unless I get lots of replies.

Last word: What do we do with Paul condemning homosexuals? Put it in the same category as his weird words on women? The justifications for slavery and murder, elsewhere in the Bible? What do we do with those?

peace

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==“Jesus was God on Earth. Whatever God said, Jesus said. God said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.” Thus, Jesus said it.”

Mr. Incredible, I see your theological point. But as to our debate, where does God say this, exactly? Through the mouth of Paul, perhaps?==

Leviticus, backed up by Scripture upon Scripture.

==There is no evidence from the Bible or otherwise that Jesus taught condemnation of homosexuality.==

Jesus was God on Earth. He said that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.”

Further, in Matthew, as TR points out, Jesus talks about divorce, and, to clarify His point, He refers to God’s joining of a man, as husband, to a woman, as his wife, that no one can tear that apart; not to mention the fact that the Word of God — Jesus — never talks about the matrimonial unit being anything other than a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. In other words, Jesus was saying that only a man and woman are joined and that only a man and a woman can divorce.

Now, where does the Word of God say that the “union” of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, is Godly, that such a “union” also produces Godly children?

== == Why didn’t Jesus say that He was abolishing all the rules in the Old Testament…==

“He didn’t.”

Mr. I, all Christians need to be informed of this theological scoop. Call the New York Times!==

No, YOU do it.

==I can’t eat shrimp from the barbie! What about my bacon cheeseburgers? This is bad. . . ==

And, yet, YOU choose to put yourself in that position.

==“A man cannot have sexual intercourse with another man. A biological impossibility.”

Mr. I, you perhaps are an authority on some things. Is this one of them?==

I know that a man cannot have sexual intercourse with another man. That doesn’t take a genius to understand.

==Or are you just avoiding discussing the Bible? ==

YOU are the one who brought it up. I merely pointed out what I pointed out.

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==“A phony, made-up question.”

Goodness me, that must be one you can’t answer.==

Translation: “You failed to legitimize my phoney question.”

==Why didn’t He say anything about how homosexual marriage would defile the sanctity of the relationship of man and woman?==

“As God, He did.”

Show me where. ==

According to Scripture upon Scripture, he began by saying that what we now call “homosexuality” is an “abomination.” Throughout the Word of God, He refers to the Godly, matrimonial unit as being only between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Jesus reiterates this in His talk about divorce.

== But in any case, as Jesus, He did not. Why? ==

See explanation above.

==“God says that the only, Godly relationship, in matrimony, is between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Nowhere does God say that so-called “same-sex ‘marriage’” is also Godly.”

That is the only verse you have to support your view that the NT condemns homosexuality? I am disappointed, but not surprised. ==

What verse? I’m not quoting one verse. I reference the whole Word of God, and, still, you have not shown us where God says that the “union” of a man and a man, and of a woman and a woman is Godly.

==“He said plenty. You missed it.”

Ah. Where? ==

You also missed where we pointed out where. You’re taking this in circles now.

==“Those who have faith didn’t missed it.”

Ah. We’ll just take your word for it. ==

Doesn’t matter.

== ==Of course, there are apparent criticisms of homosexuality in the Bible. But do you have any idea what they mean, or do you just use them as a fig leaf for your own prejudices?==

“We know what they mean.”

Ah. Care to share with us all exactly how you acquired this knowledge? ==

Through the Word of God. God makes known His mysteries through His Word to those who are born again.

== ==Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexual activity. But lending money at interest, having sexual intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period etc. are also condemned; slavery and polygamy are condoned in the Bible. How consistent do you want to be?==

“Did Croucher also mention that there is a difference between what God requires and what Jewish law requires? Did he forget to mention that, in some cases, God is talking to Man, and, in other cases, God is talking to the Jews, and that there’s a difference between Commandment, commandment, Law and law, Statute and statute, Ordinance and ordinance, and that God knows the difference between Jewish law and custom and His Law?”

Fascinating, but now you are making stuff up to patch the holes in your argument. ==

Trying to distract again, huh, from the fact you can’t answer the question. We understand.

== ==As for 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, are you sure they’re about homosexual practice? Or do they talk about promiscuity and prostitution – sex for payment?==

“They’re against the practice of homosexuality which is, according to God, an abomination.”

I think I’ve got your drift, now, yes, but where did he say this? ==

You haven’t been paying atention, have you.

==As for Sodom, we will agree to disagree. ==

Those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters would have to disagree, in the face of facts, in order to preserve their push to impose their agenda on us.

However, try addressing the fact that Lot offered his daughters to the sodomites and the sodomites refused. Gee, I wonder why they refused women and wanted the “men.”

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==“This is the trouble when scoffers try to decipher the Word of God through mental comprehension. They fail utterly. Hebrews 4:2 explains it.”

In other words, you have no idea. That’s kinda what I thought. ==

No idea that you’ll accept.

==I must have missed it.==

You must have.

== I just saw a rather lame citation of Hebrews. ==

Scoffers usually do.

==“Don’t you get tired of being wrong?”

Again no answer?==

I answered and you missed the answer. I can’t help that.

== Why did you bother responding at all? ==

God requires it.

== ==You cite OT sources. Fine, agreed, the OT seemed to have some critical things about homosexuality. But did you hear? Levitical Law was replaced by the New Covenant. ==

“That applies only to those who do not reject Jesus. Those who are not under Grace are still under Law.”

Okay, so Christians are not bound by those laws. Which was, of course, my point. Thanks. ==

We understand that you are quick to misinterpret and misrepresent.

EVERYONE is bound by God’s Law. Those who are born again are redeemed by Christ and not guilty of transgression, if they repent. Those who are not born again are still guilty.

==“Jesus said that one is defiled, not by what goes into the mouth, rather by what comes out of the mouth.”

Right, no Levitical laws, so your anti-homosexual verse goes out the window. Thanks. ==

Which laws? Jewish laws? I’m not Jewish. God requires those who reject Jesus and Him through rejection of Jesus are still required.

== == No mixed fabrics? You really think you should be killed if you have sex with your wife while she is menstruating? You need to read more about the Good News that Christ brought. ==

“Only those who are born again have access to what Christ brought.”

Right, so no more Levitical abominations.==

Of course you misrepresent the case for your agenda. We get it.

==Mr. I, you are really an ally of mine, just pretending to argue with me! You clever dog! ==

I don’t wanna destroy the fun you’re having with your delusions.

==“Romans 1 reiterates Leviticus on the question of what we now call “homosexuality.” Acts 10, however, for those who are born again, rescinds, for example, Jewish dietary regulations and other Jewish rules of customs.”

“Paul didn’t write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship.==

Wrong. Homosexuality is included.

==You don’t find Paul saying that all homosexuals are going to hell…==

It had already been said.

==Romans is Paul, not Jesus.==

Yet, Jesus is the Word, and Romans is part of the Word. If Paul said it, Jesus said it.

== Paul—who said women must be quiet in church, among other things. Why was Jesus silent on this? ==

Jesus is the Word and Romans is part of the Word. So, Jesus isn’t silent on it.

==As for Acts, does it really say that only the laws that Mr. I does not like are rescinded? ==

It doesn’t say, “Mr. Incredible.” That’s true. Gee, I’m really impressed that you got that.

==Arguing about consensual sex, you write: “Two persons make an agreement that the one will kill the other. It is consensual. Yet, it’s illegal, both to God and to Man.”

Oh, my. That is not a good answer. It is not consensual for the dead man, is it now? ==

If he agreed to the act, yes, it is. Yet, it’s illegal and ungodly.

However, YOU said that “consentuality” is all that’s needed. Now, apparently, you’re gonna come up with exceptions to the rule you made up.

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==What do we do with Paul condemning homosexuals?==

If you’re one who claims to be homosexual, ignore it, as you have been, in order to try to justify doing what you wanna do.

== Put it in the same category as his weird words on women?==

Give us the verses and explain “weird,” biblically.

== The justifications for slavery and murder, elsewhere in the Bible? What do we do with those? ==

First, you give us specific verses, in context, to make your point.

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Sorry to keep talking and talking and talking. My wife is watching TV and I am bored. ==

That is an example of the way those who claim to be homosexual “think.”

They may “repent,” but, then, they keep doing the thing they apologize for violating! That explains willful disobedience, and those who claim to be homosexual are guilty of it, and willful disobedience is sin unto death.

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==As for Acts, does it really say that only the laws that Mr. I does not like are rescinded? ==

It’s meaning is that those who are born again are not guilty under those laws.

However, that doesn’t relieve them of the duty not to violate the laws that apply. So, since I am not a Jew, the Jewish ceremonial laws are irrelevant to me.

Jesus said that what goes into a man’s mouth does not defile him, rather what comes out, outta the evil abundance of the heart. He referred to the Righteous by faith; the unrighteous are defiled by what goes into their mouths also.

While He was saying that, He had the chance to qualify “homosexuality,” but didn’t; He let what God said stand for all, homosexuality being a defilement of all who practice it.

3 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

We don’t understand your obscession with our opposition.

4 08 2008
sgsnow

Hi everybody,

On the question of homosexuality and the Bible, I obviously must grant you that Leviticus declares homosexual sex to be punishable by death, and that the some passages in the NT also condemn homosexuality.

Jesus was silent on this issue, as we have seen.

Here I present a short list of sexual behaviors (mostly from the OT), and what the Bible says about them. They ignored, while the condemnation of homosexuality is not. Why?

As Walter Wink says, “These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that are clearly superseded in Christianity, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior, and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?”

Do you suggest we follow the injunctions below? Which ones? Why or why not?

Crime: Adultery. Penalty: Death.
Lev. 20
10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

Crime: homosexual sex. Penalty: Death.
Lev. 20: 13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Crime: sex with menstruating woman. Penalty: expulsion from the community of believers
Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”

Crime: Bride marries while not a virgin. Penalty: Death.
Deut. 22
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

In another category of behaviors, there are actions we would strongly disapprove of today—if not totally condemn—which are allowed by the Bible: polygamy/levirate marriage, sexual slavery, concubinage, prostitution.

Should we follow the Bible’s teachings on these matters below? Why or why not?

Polygamy/ “levirate”marriage. A woman is obliged, after her husband’s death, to marry one of her husband’s brothers-–if there were no children-–in order to continue the line of the dead husband.

Deuteronomy 25:5
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27).

Prostitution was considered natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). Note, however, that while a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul attacks prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); but he places it in a separate–and apparently lesser– category than adultery (vs. 9).

Slavery. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal.
Eph. 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

Sexual slavery. Likely flows from the justification of slavery in general, and which 2 Sam. 5:13 permitted. (American slave owners who raped their female slaves used this verse as justification.)
Num. 31:18
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Exodus 21
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners…

Deut. 21
10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money.

Concubinage (in general, the state of a woman in a quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status. Involuntary, or servile, concubinage sometimes involves sexual slavery.) This is specifically allowed in 2 Sam. 5:13. This was a favorite verse of slave holders in the American south who wanted to rape their slaves.

Examples:
Abraham took a slave girl as a concubine (Genesis 16). King Solomon “had 700 official wives and 300 concubines….” (1 Kings 11:1-3).

See also the story in Judges 19-21, in which a rape of a male guest is avoided in the following way:

23 Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly.
24 “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.”

Should we treat the Bible as something we can pick and choose from, as it suits us? It’s hardly fair to condemn homosexual sexual behavior, and then ignore the other Biblical injunctions above, don’t you think?

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Jesus was silent on this issue, as we have seen. ==

Who’s “we”? I’m not included in that cuz I know that the opposite is true, and the Word backs ME up.

So, you, on the other hand, dispute the Word of God Which says that Jesus was God on Earth. Ok, we get that. Now we understand why you believe that God can condemn homosexuality as an abomination and that Jesus didn’t. That’s not biblical, but you believe it.

==Crime: Adultery. Penalty: Death.
Lev. 20
10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” ==

Who must put them to death??? Gee, ya think God? What kinda death?

==Crime: homosexual sex. Penalty: Death.
Lev. 20: 13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”==

Who must put them to death??? Gee, ya think God? What kinda death?

==Crime: sex with menstruating woman. Penalty: expulsion from the community of believers
Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”==

Who must cut them off? Gee, ya think God??

==Crime: Bride marries while not a virgin. Penalty: Death.
Deut. 22
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. ==

Who shall stone her to death with the stone of judgment? Gee, ya think God?

==In another category of behaviors, there are actions we would strongly disapprove of today—if not totally condemn—which are allowed by the Bible: polygamy/levirate marriage, sexual slavery, concubinage, prostitution.==

==Should we follow the Bible’s teachings on these matters below? Why or why not?

Polygamy/ “levirate”marriage. A woman is obliged, after her husband’s death, to marry one of her husband’s brothers-–if there were no children-–in order to continue the line of the dead husband. ==

When he’s dead, she is free of their marriage.

==Deuteronomy 25:5
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27). ==

When he’s dead, she is free of their marriage.

==Prostitution was considered natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried (Gen. 38:12-19…==

Not a law, only relating a situation. Storytelling.

==…Josh. 2:1-7).==

Where’s the sex?

==Note, however, that while a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner.==

That’s cuz she allowed herself to be an object. That is idolatry.

Paul attacks prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); but he places it in a separate–and apparently lesser– category than adultery (vs. 9).

==Slavery. The Old and New Testaments both regarded slavery as normal.
Eph. 6
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. ==

“Slave” in the pagan world, “servant” in the Christ world.

You use a translation that prefers “slaves.” The authorized version, from original Greek [Textus Receptus] says, “servants.” Quite a difference. I can understand why you prefer to use the translation closest to what you wanna believe.

==Sexual slavery. Likely flows from the justification of slavery in general, and which 2 Sam. 5:13 permitted.==

And, yet, Deuteronomy 17:17. So, polygamy was not and is not accroding to the Law of God.

== (American slave owners who raped their female slaves used this verse as justification.)==

And, if people use Fords in bank robberies, you won’t buy a Ford???

[continued]

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

[continued]

==Num. 31:18
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.==

“keep for yourselves; either to be handmaids to them, or to be married among them when grown up, and become proselytes, and initiated into their religion.” — Gill

” The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes…” — Henry

==Exodus 21
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners…==

I guess you re trying to make a point with that, but I dunno what it is.

==Deut. 21
10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house for a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money.==

Your point about a man marrying a woman?

==Concubinage (in general, the state of a woman in a quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status. Involuntary, or servile, concubinage sometimes involves sexual slavery.)==

As YOU see it. We understand what motivates you to see it that way.

==This is specifically allowed in 2 Sam. 5:13.==

Just cuz it is done doesn’t mean it was allowed. Deut 17:17

== This was a favorite verse of slave holders in the American south who wanted to rape their slaves. ==

So what?

==Examples:
Abraham took a slave girl..==

She wasn’t a slave.

==… as a concubine (Genesis 16).==

It happened. Doesn’t mean God approved of it since Ishmael was not the Promised Child. Many things are related in the Word of God. Not all things related ARE the Promise of God.

==King Solomon “had 700 official wives and 300 concubines….” (1 Kings 11:1-3). ==

Which also says that God told him NOT to do it. So, God did not approve of it.

==See also the story in Judges 19-21, in which a rape of a male guest is avoided in the following way:

23 Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly.
24 “Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.” ==

He proposed to prostitue his daughter for sacred hospitality. And, yet, it was not God Who approved of it. Many things are done, of which the stories are told in the Word of God, but not all the things that were done are approved of by God.

==Should we treat the Bible as something we can pick and choose from, as it suits us?==

As YOU do? No. And we don’t. We use Scripture upon Scripture which scoffers don’t understand.

== It’s hardly fair to condemn homosexual sexual behavior, and then ignore the other Biblical injunctions above, don’t you think?==

“Fair”? To whom?

The “injunctions” you bring up are mere stories, like David’s concubines, and God doesn’t approve of it anyway [Deut 17:17].

And don’t forget the fact that so many of those “injunctions” are Jewish law to which God made them beholden cuz-a their rebellion, in order to show them that they could not adhere to the Law.

However, the condemnation of homosexuality is for all of Mankind to consider.

4 08 2008
sgsnow

Mr I,

I am enjoying this, thank you for your responses.

It seems we are going to bore everybody here with our endless disagreements about Scripture, but may I ask you a tiny little question?

==Jesus was silent on this issue, as we have seen. ==

“Who’s “we”? I’m not included in that cuz I know that the opposite is true, and the Word backs ME up.”

I just don’t seem to remember the Bible verse that you cited, where Jesus said something about homosexuality? Post it one more time?

Sorry to bother. Thanks so much.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

We know that you are trying to show the Word of God contradicts Itself, and we know that you gather your arguments from scoffers’ websites, cuz you couldn’t possibly have, as one person, gone and cherry-picked all those verses.

Your arguments match so many other scoffers too much not to conclude that all of you who scoff at God and His Word are going virtually to the same sweatshop sources for your arguments. These same sources tell you people also to ignore any evidence presented to defeat your arguments, and that’s why we see the same scoffer arguments over and over again across message boards, though scoffers’ arguments have been defeated time and time again. Not very scientific, is it, to ignore critical evidence and go on as though no evidence has been given. Tsk, tsk.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==It seems we are going to bore everybody here with our endless disagreements about Scripture..==

Not my problem.

== ==Jesus was silent on this issue, as we have seen. ==

“Who’s “we”? I’m not included in that cuz I know that the opposite is true, and the Word backs ME up.”

I just don’t seem to remember the Bible verse that you cited, where Jesus said something about homosexuality? Post it one more time? ==

Jesus was God on Earth [Matthew 1:23; John 1:14]. So, everything God said, Jesus said since, also, Jesus cannot walk in disagreement with the Father.

So, where God condemns homosexuality, Jesus condemns it.

Jesus does not contradict the Father on the other things, rather, for those who reject Him, upholds them.

You’re choking on that, aren’t you.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Again, God doesn’t treat the disobedient as He treats the obedient.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Walter Wink says, “Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding.==

Who regards this? Those who reject the Reconciliation, or those who accept It?

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

“Religion” means “to be bound up.”

Those who reject Reconciliation bind themselves to Law as their savior. They are the ones who question Christianity by saying that those who are born again eat shrimp and that, thus, they are hypocrites. They say that we must be bound by the Law. They are the ones who deliver condemnation.

“Christianity” is not a religion, rather a Relationship” that has freed those who turn to God through His Son, freed them from the curse of the Law, not the Law. For them, there is now no condemnation.

So, those who are born again are not guilty. Those who are not born again remain guilty, and they try to heap guilt on us, but it doesn’t land.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

I’m just curious where the discrimination is in a law, or proposed law, that defines “marriage” as a union between “man” and a “woman.”

Isn’t everybody covered by the terms “man” and “woman”? Is anybody left out?

Does the law say that the man must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t. Does the law say that the woman must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t.

Except that members of a third sex are excluded, against whom is the law discriminating?

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==It seems we are going to bore everybody here with our endless disagreements about Scripture…==

Is Scripture not the subject of this thread, not to mention that It is relevant evidence in any discussion on any thread???

What do I care whether somebody is bored? The Word of God doesn’t say that I should stop just cuz somebody is bored. It says that I should continue, go forward.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I just don’t seem to remember the Bible verse that you cited, where Jesus said something about homosexuality…==

Jesus, Who was God on Earth, let stand the condemnation, by God, of what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.”

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

As a matter of fact, when He referred, in His talk about divorce — cuz only a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, can divorce cuz only they are joined by God — WHAT, not who — to the Godly union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, He was reiterating and clarifying why two men/two women just don’t make it.

4 08 2008
sgsnow

Mr. I,

Earlier I wrote: “I just don’t seem to remember the Bible verse that you cited, where Jesus said something about homosexuality? Post it one more time?”

You responded: “Jesus was God on Earth [Matthew 1:23; John 1:14]. So, everything God said, Jesus said since, also, Jesus cannot walk in disagreement with the Father.”

So, no verse exists in the Bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality.

Thank you, Mr. I. It took a while to get it out of you, but that’s okay. No worries–we all knew what the answer was, anyway!

“You’re choking on that, aren’t you.”

Oh, yes, totally.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Earlier I wrote: “I just don’t seem to remember the Bible verse that you cited, where Jesus said something about homosexuality? Post it one more time?”

You responded: “Jesus was God on Earth [Matthew 1:23; John 1:14]. So, everything God said, Jesus said since, also, Jesus cannot walk in disagreement with the Father.”

So, no verse exists in the Bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality.==

Jesus was God on Earth. So, where God condemns what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination,” Jesus condemns what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.”

==Thank you, Mr. I. It took a while to get it out of you, but that’s okay. No worries–we all knew what the answer was, anyway!==

I’m happy to see that you agree with me that Jesus was God on Earth and that whatever God said, Jesus said, and that, where God condemns what we now call “homosexuality,” Jesus also condemns what we now call “homosexuality.”

Thanks! I knew that you would come around. Facts have that effect.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

And, by the way…

Jesus never contradicted the Father’s condemnation of what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.” Jesus let that stand.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Jesus came not to abolish the Law, rather to fulfill it.

Therefore, since Jesus never contradicted the Father’s condemnation of what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination,” the condemnation stands.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==So, no verse exists in the Bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality.==

Are you asking us to conform to your interpretation that Jesus contradicted the Father?

According to Hosea, two cannot walk together except in agreement.

Are you trying to tell me — tell US — that Jesus did not walk in agreement with the Father?

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Having walked in agreement with the Father would tend to support the idea that Jesus did not contradict the Father’s condemnation of what we now call “homosexuality” as an “abomination.” After all, Jesus said that He came not to abolish the Law, rather to fulfill it.

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Where does Jesus rescind Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, regarding what we now call “homosexuality”?

Where does Jesus rescind anything in the Word of God that says that the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is a Godly union?

Where does Jesus improve upon God’s joining of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, by adding the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? Where does He say that the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, is not the only, Godly matrimonial unit?

4 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==So, no verse exists in the Bible where Jesus mentions homosexuality. ==

Ever play “Charades”? The presenter uses no words. Yet, he gets ideas across.

It’s not necessary to use the word “homosexuality” to get the idea across. Everyone who reads Scripture and understands English understands what God/Jesus said against what we now call “homosexuality.”

They also understand that, where God refers to His joining of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, as the only, Godly, matrimonial unit, that pretty much excludes everything else as a matrimonial unit.

5 08 2008
sgsnow

Mr. Incredible,

You are struggling and straining so much, I am afraid you are going to hurt yourself. Just relax for a second.

Here are some responses to what you wrote.

“We know that you are trying to show the Word of God contradicts Itself”

No, that is not my point at all. Since you missed it, here it is again.

The sexual behaviors that the Bible condemns, and those that it does not, are mostly ignored by Christians like yourself, who simply pick and choose among verses, to suit their own opinions and prejudices.

I am not a scoffer, not by a long shot. My aim is to show everyone that your opinions are based only on a fundamental (and intentional?) blindness to what the Bible says about sexual behavior.

You love to quote the Leviticus verse that condemns homosexuals to death. Okay, but that is treating OT as some sort of cafeteria (Hold the onions!), unless you give the same respect to:

Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

and

Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”

and

Deut. 22
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

These are just three examples. They are sexual behaviors, just like homosexual sex. Do you argue we should stone adulterers to death, Mr. I? Expel those who have sex with menstruating women? Execute young brides who are not virgins?

If so, that’s fine–at least you would be consistent, instead of just ignoring or trying (so hard, yet failing) to explain such verses away. God will get you for denying His Word like that!

“Jesus, Who was God on Earth, let stand the condemnation, by God, of what we now call ‘homosexuality’ as an ‘abomination.’ ”

Okay, that makes perfect sense. Really, it does.

But here is the thing.

By the same logic, when Jesus discussed, without criticism, levirate marriage (Mark 12:18-27), he let stand God’s word on that issue. So you are saying that widows should have sex with their husbands’ brothers, until they get pregnant. I don’t think you have much company on that one, but again, you would at least get some points for consistency.

You are quite fond of accusing people of abominations. Let’s see what God says about those who refuse levirate marriage, shall we?

Deut. 25
“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.'”
“Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’
then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’
“For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.”

Note that Jesus spoke on this issue, and let stand Deut. 25, as quoted above; He was not silent, as he was on homosexuality. So this one must be really important, no?

Oh, wait, this must be one of the many dishes in the OT cafeteria that you do not want to put on your tray. Never mind.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). Good luck with that.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==You are struggling and straining so much…==

Not at all. It’s easier than you say you think.

==The sexual behaviors that the Bible condemns, and those that it does not, are mostly ignored by Christians like yourself…==

The condemnation, by the Word of God, of homosexuality covers it pretty well. We don’t ignore it.

The only sexual behaviors the Word of God doesn’t condemn is that which takes place within marriage.

==… [Christians] who simply pick and choose among verses, to suit their own opinions and prejudices. ==

That’s the way you choose to see it, though what you see is a ghost.

==I am not a scoffer, not by a long shot.==

And, yet, that is the texture of your writing here.

==My aim is to show everyone that your opinions are based only on a fundamental (and intentional?) blindness to what the Bible says about sexual behavior. ==

Except that I am not blind since the Lord made me see.

==You love to quote the Leviticus verse that condemns homosexuals to death. ==

However, it doesn’t say WHO shall kill them. It is presumed that God will, or that He will just let them go without His protection and die.

==…that is treating OT as some sort of cafeteria (Hold the onions!), unless you give the same respect to:

Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”==

What is the naturee of this “death” and who does the killing?

==…and

Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”==

Who must cut them off?

==…and

Deut. 22
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.==

That is not God’s law, rather Jewish law. Jesus rescinded that. He didn’t rescind Leviticus 18:22, nor Leviticus 20:13. In fact, Paul notes, in Romans 1, that Jesus, as God, gave up the disobedient, like those who claim to be homosexual.

==Do you argue we should stone adulterers to death, Mr. I…==

Jesus rescinded stoning by those who have also sinned.

==… Expel those who have sex with menstruating women? Execute young brides who are not virgins?==

Those are Jewish law that God binds those who reject Him to follow.

==If so, that’s fine–at least you would be consistent, instead of just ignoring or trying (so hard, yet failing) to explain such verses away. ==

When willyou answer all the questions I asked? You have yet to answser one, and I have answer all of yours.

==God will get you for denying His Word like that! ==

The Devil tells me that all the time. I just ignore him.

==“Jesus, Who was God on Earth, let stand the condemnation, by God, of what we now call ‘homosexuality’ as an ‘abomination.’ ”

Okay, that makes perfect sense. Really, it does. But here is the thing.

By the same logic, when Jesus discussed, without criticism, levirate marriage (Mark 12:18-27), he let stand God’s word on that issue.==

Yes, He let stand the principle that, if a husband dies, the wife can marry again. No surprises there.

== So you are saying that widows should have sex with their husbands’ brothers, until they get pregnant.==

No, and that’s not what Jesus said. What He said in Mark refers back to Deuteronomy 25:5, and clearly, refers to the widow’s marrying, not just having sex.

Y’see, this is the trouble we have arguing with people like you who try to use mental comprehension to discern what is spiritual. People like you cannot rely on Scripture upon Scripture cuz you people dont’ have access to the Holy Spirit in Righteousness which is of faith, and who hold the Truth in unrighteousness.

== I don’t think you have much company on that one…==

No concern to me. I don’t depend on others’ private interpretation, rather on Holy Spirit interpretation.

==… but again, you would at least get some points for consistency. ==

You don’t see my consistency. That’s not my fault.

==You are quite fond of accusing people of abominations. ==

Never did it. I let God do it. I merely report it.

==Let’s see what God says about those who refuse levirate marriage, shall we?

Deut. 25
“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’”
“Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’
then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’
“For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.”==

It is an abomination to God to say that you will follow your rules, then, turn around and break your own rules. In other words, if you’re gonna follow your own rules, saying that they are your salvation, then follow them and see where it gets you.

==Note that Jesus spoke on this issue, and let stand Deut. 25, as quoted above; He was not silent…==

See answer just above.

==… as he was on homosexuality. ==

Jesus, as God, was not silent on homosexuality.

==If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). Good luck with that.==

I don’t need good luck. I need only the Word of God Which says that those who are born again are not under Law, rather under Grace. Those who are not born again are under Law, not under Grace. Not surprising that you would pick and choose and ignore that one.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

So, when will you answer the questions I asked?

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==My aim is to show everyone that your opinions are based only on a fundamental (and intentional?) blindness to what the Bible says about sexual behavior. ==

What Bible? The Homosexual Internet Militia Revised Translation Version?

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

The modus operandi of these scoffers is to present so many questions and issues for us to answer, to bog us down, as they ignore the questions and issues we post for them to answer. [Notice that sgsnow has yet to address any of the points I brought up; it’s clear he’s stumped]

However, as far as I’m concerned, they don’t know how easy it is for me to post answers to their questions and the issues they bring up. It doesn’t take me but a few minutes. Nearly effortless. [TR, you know what I’m talking about]

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==Mr. Incredible,
You are struggling and straining so much…==

You don’t know how easy it is for me. Virtually effortless.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==You love to quote the Leviticus verse that condemns homosexuals to death.==

I believe I’ve quoted them only once, or twice.

== Okay, but that is treating OT as some sort of cafeteria (Hold the onions!), unless you give the same respect to … [and he picks and chooses verses he believes support his point]:…==

Except that God is speaking to Mankind when He refers to what we now call “homosexuality as an “abomination.”

In your pick’n’choose verses, God is talking to Jews whom He is requiring to follow their own rules, since they reject Him and believe that their rules will save them. God shows that they can’t even follow their own rules. It’s the same today with people, like you, who believe that, by throwing the Law in our faces, they are doing God’s work. The Pharisees thought that, also.

However, there are some things, like God’s condemnation of what we now call “homosexuality,” from which Jesus chose not to dissent, that are, as I’ve indicated, universal, and this is reiterated in Romans 1. None of these other “laws” are reiterated by Jesus.

Not only is God condemnation of what we now call “homosexuality” reiterated in Romans 1, it is reiterated in God’s general policy of relations between a man and a woman, as Godly elements of the matrimonial unit.

In other words, there is nothing in the Word of God that says that the matrimonial unit is made up of other than a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. If a matrimonial unit made up of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, were Godly, you’d think that God would have spent as much time explaining that as He spent explaining the other. But no. There is no mention of a matrimonial unit composed of a man and a man, nor a woman and a woman; and that goes back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Jesus reiterates this.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Try to tell us where the discrimination is in a law, or proposed law, that defines “marriage” as a union between “man” and a “woman.”

Isn’t everybody covered by the terms “man” and “woman”? Is anybody left out?

Does the law say that the man must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t. Does the law say that the woman must be heterosexual? No, it doesn’t.

Except that members of a third sex are excluded, against whom is the law discriminating?

5 08 2008
sgsnow

Mr. I,

Okay, I’m trying to answer your questions.

Me: ==You love to quote the Leviticus verse that condemns homosexuals to death. ==

You: “However, it doesn’t say WHO shall kill them. It is presumed that God will, or that He will just let them go without His protection and die.”

“They shall be put to death” or “he shall surely be put to death” and “their blood shall be upon them”? Isn’t that perfectly clear? I really don’t see how they just accidentally die when He no longer protects them. Like getting hit by a car? You are really stretching here, against about 2,000 years of interpretations of Leviticus.

Me: Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”==

You: What is the naturee of this “death” and who does the killing?

I think that is perfectly clear: the community kills the woman. How on earth do you read it?

Me: Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”==

You: Who must cut them off?

Okay, okay, I get your drift here. Somehow they just get expelled accidentally, like if they set their alarm clocks late and everybody has already moved their tents–just purely coincidentally.

Remember, Jesus no longer wants us to stone adulterers. He argues against the old law. But for you, the old law just says they die accidentally, somehow, like by falling rocks on the highway.

So the capital punishments in Leviticus are somehow just symbolic? Like denial of eternal life?

Mr. I, you don’t know the God of the OT very well. He was quite vengeful and very willing to lay waste to entire peoples. Genocide, sexual crimes, the whole nine. That is how the God of the New Testament is so different, see? He is the God of Love, instead of the God of Vengeance.

That is how the message of Jesus is different. He says, No more eye-for-an-eye, that just makes us blind. We need to love our enemies, not kill them.

Me: Deut. 22
 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.==

You: That is not God’s law, rather Jewish law. Jesus rescinded that. He didn’t rescind Leviticus 18:22, nor Leviticus 20:13.

Honest John and Kings Ex and Pinkie Swear, Mr. I, please tell me how you know which laws were rescinded? I absolutely have to know that, and I will totally give you full props if you can answer that question. I will post on my blog: “Mr. I knows his Bible better than I do”. No jokin’.

Me: By the same logic, when Jesus discussed, without criticism, levirate marriage (Mark 12:18-27), he let stand God’s word on that issue.==

You: Yes, He let stand the principle that, if a husband dies, the wife can marry again. No surprises there.

All I can say here is that readers should go to the verses and look. Levirate marriage–look on Wikipedia, for goodness sake–means marrying the brother/s of the dead man to keep the line going. Just go look. Readers should just look at Deut. 25 and then Mark 12:18-27. It is not like Revelations; it’s all pretty clear.

Me: ==Let’s see what God says about those who refuse levirate marriage, shall we?

Deut. 25
” And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’
then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face;
“For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.”==

You: It is an abomination to God to say that you will follow your rules, then, turn around and break your own rules. In other words, if you’re gonna follow your own rules, saying that they are your salvation, then follow them and see where it gets you.

Mr. I, come on now, you neglect to mention that we are still talking about levirate marriage in that verse, and the label attached to those NOT doing so: abomination. Let’s quote it here again:

Deut. 25
“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses’…For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.

Again, how on earth are you going to read this, if not against levirate marriage?

It has been fun, Mr. I, it really has, and I thank you. You got game. But I think I am going to admit defeat and retire unless you can post some really good stuff.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==…what the Bible says about sexual behavior. ==

Present a line of scriptural thought — that is, Scripture upon Scripture. Don’t just pluck a verse here and a verse there cuz one verse does not doctrine make.

Show us that what you say is true about those verses is consistently true across a line of scriptural thought. Again, that would be Scripture upon Scripture. You don’t have that.

However, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are favorably subject to Scripture upon Scripture interpretation, as I have shown. Therefore, they are God’s rules. The verses you post are men’s rules, and He holds them to them. They, of course, fail. That’s the curse of the Law. Those who are born again are no longer under the curse of the Law. They are not beholden to Jewish law and custom which is what you bring up.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==“They shall be put to death” or “he shall surely be put to death” and “their blood shall be upon them”? Isn’t that perfectly clear?==

Your interpretation, to YOU, is perfectly clear. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong interpretation.

== I really don’t see how they just accidentally die when He no longer protects them.==

Evil is floating around the universe. Without God, there is no protection against that evil.

== Like getting hit by a car? You are really stretching here, against about 2,000 years of interpretations of Leviticus. ==

By whom?

==Me: Deut. 22: 22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”==

You: What is the naturee of this “death” and who does the killing?

I think that is perfectly clear: the community kills the woman.==

We understand that you believe that your interpretation, to YOU, is perfectly clear to you.

== How on earth do you read it? ==

God does not tell the community to kill anybody in that verse.

==Me: Lev. 20: 18 ” ‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. ”==

You: Who must cut them off?

Okay, okay, I get your drift here. Somehow they just get expelled accidentally, like if they set their alarm clocks late and everybody has already moved their tents–just purely coincidentally. ==

Not at all. Through God’s mechanisms, God works.

==Remember, Jesus no longer wants us to stone adulterers.==

No. He says that those without sin may.

== He argues against the old law.==

No, He doesn’t. He came to fulfill it.

== But for you, the old law just says they die accidentally, somehow, like by falling rocks on the highway. ==

Evil comes against anyone who reject God. The agreement — that is, Reconciliation — is that He will protect you if you are born again. If you are not born again, you have rejected His Reconciliation offer and meet yourself susceptible to the hurts of the universe.

==So the capital punishments in Leviticus are somehow just symbolic? Like denial of eternal life? ==

Types and shadows.

==Mr. I, you don’t know the God of the OT very well.==

Translation: “You don’t agree with me, and, therefore, that must mean that you don’t know the God of the Old Testament very well.”

== He was quite vengeful and very willing to lay waste to entire peoples.==

He still is, to the disobedient. It’s what he is willing to do to rid the world of evil.

== Genocide, sexual crimes, the whole nine. That is how the God of the New Testament is so different, see? He is the God of Love, instead of the God of Vengeance.==

Not to the disobedient. He does not treat the disobedient as he does the obedient. He loves, but, as any good parent, His love does not preclude His justice. He promised justice.

==That is how the message of Jesus is different. He says, No more eye-for-an-eye, that just makes us blind. We need to love our enemies, not kill them.==

You are applying worldly love to them. Biblical love is something else.

==Me: Deut. 22
 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.==

You: That is not God’s law, rather Jewish law. Jesus rescinded that. He didn’t rescind Leviticus 18:22, nor Leviticus 20:13.

Honest John and Kings Ex and Pinkie Swear, Mr. I, please tell me how you know which laws were rescinded?==

Jesus told me.

== Me: By the same logic, when Jesus discussed, without criticism, levirate marriage (Mark 12:18-27), he let stand God’s word on that issue.==

You: Yes, He let stand the principle that, if a husband dies, the wife can marry again. No surprises there.

All I can say here is that readers should go to the verses and look. Levirate marriage–look on Wikipedia, for goodness sake–means marrying the brother/s of the dead man to keep the line going. Just go look. Readers should just look at Deut. 25 and then Mark 12:18-27. It is not like Revelations; it’s all pretty clear. ==

By the way, it’s “Revelation,” not, “Revelations.”

God encourages the widow to marry. Yes, that’s pretty clear.

==Me: ==Let’s see what God says about those who refuse levirate marriage, shall we?

Deut. 25
” And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’
then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face;
“For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.”==

You: It is an abomination to God to say that you will follow your rules, then, turn around and break your own rules. In other words, if you’re gonna follow your own rules, saying that they are your salvation, then follow them and see where it gets you.

Mr. I, come on now, you neglect to mention that we are still talking about levirate marriage in that verse, and the label attached to those NOT doing so: abomination. Let’s quote it here again:

Deut. 25
“But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses’…For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an ABOMINATION to the LORD your God.

Again, how on earth are you going to read this, if not against levirate marriage? ==

The widow may marry. Originally, you claimed that the widow was going around having sex, that God allowed this. God did not allow it. God is urging the widow to marry.

==… I think I am going to admit defeat and retire unless you can post some really good stuff.==

I have been posting really good stuff; and you still haven’t answered my questions.

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

How does a law that says that “marriage” is a union between “man” and the “woman,” or between “male” and “female” discriminate against those who say they are homosexual? Aren’t those who claim to be homosexual either male, or female? Aren’t those who claim to be homosexual either men, or women? Unless there is a third sex whose members the law excludes, where is the discrimination?

5 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

==I think I am going to admit defeat…==

As though it wasn’t apparent earlier on and you’re just now admitting it.

==… and retire unless you can post some really good stuff.==

We understand that you’re stumped. Totally understand.

7 08 2008
Mr. Incredible

Hard to believe, what with all the fuss about intelligence and reason and the scientific and logic and empiricism, not to mention the dustup about “equal Rights, nobody can answer my questions about the makeup of the law — that is, the one above about discrimination.

Yes, there are plenty of claims about violation of equal application and protection; but, when confronted by me to present evidence in answer to those questions I asked about whether everybody’s included in “man” and “woman,” “male” and “female,” all we get is silence.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: