Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, I remember now, about that special word that is only found in the bible...

Uncertain and lacking in confidence maybe but a stupid idiot? Not even.

I have no idea what to do with this sort of thing.
For starters yes Christians today are mostly dealing with the homosexuality thing wrongly. Jesus would not be shouting hate, he would not be in voting booths voting against it (or even with it). How do I know this? Well that was not in Jesus's methods. He would show them kindness.
Yes I believe it is a sin however, it is in the bible several times. Everybody is born with at least one thorn in their side; a sin that is like a bad habit.
I'm not going to vote against them, not even for them. I would like to call myself a neutral, but I don't think it is the case.

well 6 times is still a number, and out of curiosity how are all the cases not dealing with today's concept? What's the difference besides not being monogamous? (really just curious)

Hetero-sexual relations made you unclean too though, yet the text calls one detestable and not the other. Why is that?



When Lev 18:22 talks about "lying with a man as one does with a woman", it ends with "it's detestable"/"it's an abomination" (depending on the version), not "you'll be unclean until evening". Again, why? When I think about it, Leviticus 18's main concern is about unlawful sexual relations, not because of ritual purity, but because it dishonors (and ultimately dishonors our Heavenly Father). I think the way the chapter ends is really telling,

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God. ’”

It's not just, "you'll be unclean", but you'll be ostracized (or stoned?). It would seem as if engaging in "abomination"/"detestable things" and being "unclean until evening" is not the same, the former ("lying with man as one does with a woman") having nothing to do with ritual purity, but who you're dedicated to (the desires of your flesh or the desires of your creator).

In the same vein, concerning Romans 1:26-27: why is it called a "shameful lust"/"vile affection" if what is being condemned is the pagan sex ritual and not the same-sex lust itself? I had a thought while reading it: we are described as being the bride (female) of Christ (male). But when man starts worshiping himself and his own creations, what's right in his own eyes instead of our Heavenly Father's eyes, he is given over to himself (male and male; female and female) as a nation. I don't know if I conveyed that clearly, lol. Oh and I'm not implying people will suddenly change sexual orientation/attraction; I don't think that can be changed. What can change is whether we're in a state of lust or whether we engage in sex at all.

edited

I think we're justified (sins atoned for) by believing, but sanctification moves us into a place where we stop living by our unlawful carnal passions. It's hard to resist wanting to live by the law once you're saved because he puts a new heart in you that loves righteousness, and the law is righteousness.

About ritual purity, I'm not saying "ritual purity" still applies; I'm saying even back when it was the incentive (heterosexuals included), there's a distinction made between "husband lying with wife" and "man lying with a man like one does with a woman". The context of Lev 18 is "do not have sex in the following dishonorable ways" it's not speaking of specific sex rituals. Only one refers to uncleanness and that's having sex with a woman while she is menstruating. From what I can see, the only acceptable form of quenching ones lust is marriage between a man and a woman, outside of that you're suppose to avoid falling into such a state (that goes for heterosexual single people too). Anyone engaging or wanting to engage in the prohibitions of Lev 18 is defiled in their hearts already, because it means they're not seeking the approved way to quench one's lust, they're choosing their own method. That's walking to please the flesh (man) and not the spirit (God).



So would that mean that the "shameful lust" they felt before committing the shameful act was the urge to commit idolatry/stray from the truth, not necessarily the lust they felt for the temple prostitute of the same sex? (emphasis on lust, not attraction). I was under the impression that they made their own images/gods, as in not just physical representations but changing God into their likeness to suit their own tastes, as an excuse to pursue their own lusts.

Oooh! I never noticed that before surprised From the way it's worded, it's implying that a man is prohibited from penetrating the beast, and the women from "presenting herself" (receiving penetration?) from the beast.



edit because I got distracted with my random thought (lol): in light of how verse 23 makes a distinction, it's anatomically impossible for a man to have sex with fellow man as if he were a woman. Why is it phrased that way? In the spirit of my random thought, is this just once again saying, "don't be lovers of yourselves, love me (YHWH) instead"? When you become one with something, you honor it, but in YHWH's eyes, it's dishonor to do so with anyone but him. And wife + husband symbolizes the Church becoming one with Jesus. Did I miss what you were trying to say?

idea Random thought: when speaking about the harlot's relation to the beast (in Revelation), it uses the same kind of language applied to sexual sins. If sex is the act of becoming "one", then we're being told not to become one with the beast all the way back in Leviticus. I think these laws have a more profound meaning, as well as a practical application.

From the perspective that gay sex is wrong, it was keeping the family together. I take it you don't see how the Old Testament was righteous before the new covenant even came into existence? Sin is what breaks families apart (or causes them to cease from existing), before it even comes to the ostracizing or stoning. By pruning out the ones who didn't esteem his wisdom, preventative measures were taken to keep the wound from festering even more, he maintained the health of his set apart family and kept them unified. That was the family that mattered. Had they truly loved him, they would've obeyed, not willfully overstepped his commands (all of which looked out for their well-being, not just for individuals, but more importantly for the community as a whole).

What I see being expressed in the narrative is, "I set you apart from the world with the commands I gave you (and not just that, I literally led you out of Egypt as guided by my cloud/pillar of smoke and fire), but if you long for the world, then go ahead and stay out". To permanently leave YHWH's presence, however, is death (spiritual death), hence the cutting off of a family member. His people weren't (and still are not) suppose to love anyone more than him, he's the highest authority; so when choosing to act against his will (again, coming from the perspective that gay sex is wrong) a person would be saying, "I hold something else in higher esteem; I love something more than YHWH's wisdom" which is idolatry, whether it be our desires/will or another human being's or the world's, anything that we put on a higher pedestal in our decision-making is an idol. I think that if we don't lay down our will when it conflicts with the Father's, we're not truly following in Yeshua's footsteps. He didn't want to drink the cup, but he did say, "I want your will to be done, not mine".

Having said that, the new covenant takes the punishment out of our hands. Now we wouldn't cut them off from their family, we'd tell them to stop sinning as Yeshua did with the adulteress. He didn't condemn her through stoning, yet he did not support her choice to sin; he told her to stop her adultery and "sin no more". The act doesn't cease being sinful, we just don't punish anymore. I agree that the new covenant is greater: we now have an even greater mercy and we have the Holy Spirit. Mercy for the sins that previously were punishable by death, but now we have the opportunity to simply repent from; the other sins we also don't personally have to atone for anymore because atonement is a responsibility that has been taken from our hands and given to our High Priest in Heaven (Yeshua). The Holy Spirit is being offered to everyone now (like he promised he'd ask the Father to send and he does send to all who ask for it Lk 11:13) which drives us to do what's right, but can be ignored. Once it's received and heeded, it's not through our own effort anymore that we live righteously because he's operating through us. Anyone who has truly been given a new heart will not be abusing the law to do evil.




In that respect, I don't understand why people are still staying underneath their sin and sensuality as if it has some chokehold on them. Yeah, they're saved but why are they still wearing their old nature, when a new one is being offered to them (Col 3:10, Eph 4:24)? I think "lack of faith" is the culprit; they don't believe the words of the text completely so they don't believe they can have self control over things like lust; so, instead, they rationalize that it's just fine to stay in their old nature. I'm fully convinced of the text because I've put it to the test and it worked; all carnal appetites were brought into submission. I was met by external opposition (people saying "you don't need to, don't do it, just don't"), but no opposition from my body or my heart anymore. And in other areas, I had just become attached to "habits", not necessarily that I derived any enjoyment out of it--which I wasn't released from until I asked to be, wholeheartedly, like broken in tears over it (which I think is what 2 Cor 7:9-10 is talking about, a sorrow that leads to repentance).



So, if someone didn't want to eat cheeseburgers or shave, they must be under the law to do so? People are to subject themselves under the whole law if they're doing it to save themselves. There are those who in their hearts want to follow him completely after they've been saved (and I'm of the belief it's the Holy Spirit driving them to do so) not for the sake of keeping old covenant rules, but because they want to do what is pleasing in his sight and they realize that everything he said was beneficial (Psalm 119:160). If I had to resort to a cheeseburger to survive, I'd feel no guilt for eating it even though it's not the food I'd go for if I had the choice. Nor would I condemn anyone for eating it, but I wouldn't support their choice if they had more positive ways to eat available to them. I'm not saying all sex is wrong; procreating should be within a marriage though. Those kinds of physical bonds shouldn't be made between the unmarried. If you're "burning with passion" you get married lawfully (as in, a marriage his commands approve of) or you stay single and celibate (1 Cor 7). I don't think any of what he commanded is burdensome, but helpful for our own benefit. It only becomes a problem when we are more attached to our sins than we are of him.