What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Jacob]

A crime, sure. Homosexuality isn't one.

Well, there would be two witnesses that is for sure. But why do you say that it is not a crime? Is it because of what the word crime means or entails? How do you view the Bible the Torah and the Law the Law of Moses and the New Covenant with God's law written on minds and hearts? The New Covenant is not like the Old.

It is my belief that homosexuality is a crime. But that is because I see it in the law not because I am sold out on the word crime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:18-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:18-32&version=NKJV

Telling how you didn't highlight the whole passage there. Unloving, unmerciful, unforgiving etc.

Homosexuality is not a crime and we don't happen to live in ancient times.

 

[Jacob]

Homosexuality is not a crime and we don't happen to live in ancient times.

It does not matter when you live. It is God's Law whether you think it ancient times or not. However, we do have a New Covenant, whether the Old Covenant has passed away or not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, there would be two witnesses that is for sure. But why do you say that it is not a crime? Is it because of what the word crime means or entails? How do you view the Bible the Torah and the Law the Law of Moses and the New Covenant with God's law written on minds and hearts? The New Covenant is not like the Old.

It is my belief that homosexuality is a crime. But that is because I see it in the law not because I am sold out on the word crime.

Because it isn't one. Even the more zealously persuaded don't argue that being homosexual is a crime unless they act out on it. As I'm not legalistically minded I don't give credence to those that would remake it one based on stuff in the OT.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It does not matter when you live. It is God's Law whether you think it ancient times or not. However, we do have a New Covenant, whether the Old Covenant has passed away or not.

Yes, there is a New Covenant and laws set for ancient tribes in olden times are hardly applicable today for many a part. For example, if people don't work then nor shall they eat makes sense for those times as people would have been dependant on each in order to survive. It doesn't mean that someone who doesn't have a job in the present should be deprived of food.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Telling how you didn't highlight the whole passage there. Unloving, unmerciful, unforgiving etc.

Homosexuality is not a crime and we don't happen to live in ancient times.

Taking things out of context again, are we?

The ones Paul is calling "unloving," et al, is "man".

More specifically, it's those who do not love God, them He gave over to a debased mind. They are the ones who, having given up the natural use of women and men, committing homosexual acts with one another...

who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:32&version=NKJV

In simpler terms...

THE HOMOS ARE DESERVING OF DEATH.

A death penalty is part of a good justice system.

Ergo, Paul is affirming homosexuality as being a capital crime.

So who should we believe?

Arty: (Stomping his feet) Homosexuality is not a crime!

OR

Paul: Homosexuality is a crime worthy of death.

...

I'm gonna stick with Paul on this one.

 

[Jacob]

Because it isn't one. Even the more zealously persuaded don't argue that being homosexual is a crime unless they act out on it. As I'm not legalistically minded I don't give credence to those that would remake it one based on stuff in the OT.

But a person can come to a point where they used to be a homosexual which means that it is wrong to be a homosexual even if you are not acting on it. If the person were to act on it would it be a crime in your book? I believe that you are saying that having a male roommate as a man may not be a sin.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Agreed.

But that was after citing what the Law said.

What part of "He . . . then gave an even stricter teaching for His sheep, Israel, for the coming millennial kingdom" do you not understand?



:dunce:

I understand what He said just fine and if you agree that He gave a new instruction then I suggest you think a bit deeper about it. Much like the case of the woman caught in adultery...tell me something JR. What do you think Jesus was writing on the ground that convicted the crowd to shuffle off and leave Jesus alone with her?

:think:

 

[Jacob]

Yes, there is a New Covenant and laws set for ancient tribes in olden times are hardly applicable today for many a part. For example, if people don't work then nor shall they eat makes sense for those times as people would have been dependant on each in order to survive. It doesn't mean that someone who doesn't have a job in the present should be deprived of food.

I am not sure what you mean? What are you saying? What are you responding to and what are you saying? Some clarification makes sense to me, the need for it that is (hopefully makes sense to you), if you can follow that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

But a person can come to a point where they used to be a homosexual which means that it is wrong to be a homosexual even if you are not acting on it. If the person were to act on it would it be a crime in your book? I believe that you are saying that having a male roommate as a man may not be a sin.

There's no credible evidence for that happening. Quite the opposite given how supposed "conversion therapy" centres have been shown to be a crock. It wouldn't be a crime to me one way or another and not one I'd have to worry about either.

 

[Jacob]

There's no credible evidence for that happening. Quite the opposite given how supposed "conversion therapy" centres have been shown to be a crock. It wouldn't be a crime to me one way or another and not one I'd have to worry about either.

You own innocence does not mean that you do not approve of evil that you are not practicing though. You should change that. I don't think it is judging or being judgmental to side with God on an issue or matter. If you accept God's Law that is a good thing. If you differ in any point maybe you should consider your motivation for doing such.

I am unfamiliar with conversion therapy, so I can't speak to your comments on that.

 

[Lon]

Do you believe that people possess the inalienable right to be disobedient to God, or do you think that law enforcement /police and government has the just power to force, harass, pressure, and coerce people to obey God?

How about 'murder?' "Why" is murder wrong? In a similar fashion, I believe Jacob's post follows the same line of thinking. Can we ever separate politics from 'our values?' I'd suggest the answer is :nono:

There's no credible evidence for that happening. Quite the opposite given how supposed "conversion therapy" centres have been shown to be a crock. It wouldn't be a crime to me one way or another and not one I'd have to worry about either.

Simply this: Are you a fleshly animal, or are you a spiritual being? The answer becomes different depending on your answer. I believe many simply argue from an 'animal' instinct. "Why" is it not okay for me to kill another human being like animals do, naturally?

As above, politics and laws 'may' only reflect those who are nothing more than animals such that ALL of our laws will eventually be lifted up to that scrutiny. If we live like animals, we will be animals. If we are created for some higher purpose, we must 'live' to the expectation. -Lon

 

[Arthur Brain]

Taking things out of context again, are we?

The ones Paul is calling "unloving," et al, is "man".

More specifically, it's those who do not love God, them He gave over to a debased mind. They are the ones who, having given up the natural use of women and men, committing homosexual acts with one another...

who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. - Romans 1:32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:32&version=NKJV

In simpler terms...

THE HOMOS ARE DESERVING OF DEATH.

A death penalty is part of a good justice system.

Ergo, Paul is affirming homosexuality as being a capital crime.

So who should we believe?

Arty: (Stomping his feet) Homosexuality is not a crime!

OR

Paul: Homosexuality is a crime worthy of death.

...

I'm gonna stick with Paul on this one.

Um, I don't need to "stamp my feet" JR and that's straight out of doser's trolling textbook so please, if you're going to try and insult me then at least concoct some original stuff?

Otherwise, you're just contorting the usual as if you're guilt free of several of that as described within that passage.

Homosexuality isn't a crime, that's just fact.

 

[Jacob]

How about 'murder?' "Why" is murder wrong? In a similar fashion, I believe Jacob's post follows the same line of thinking. Can we ever separate politics from 'our values?' I'd suggest the answer is :nono:

The problem is that some people believe that the Ten Commandments define right and wrong but other than that the other commandments of the law are not for today. I wouldn't know why the Ten Commandments are for today either.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I understand what He said just fine

You clearly don't.

and if you agree that He gave a new instruction then I suggest you think a bit deeper about it.

Thought about it. Next?

Much like the case of the woman caught in adultery...

:deadhorse:

tell me something JR. What do you think Jesus was writing on the ground that convicted the crowd to shuffle off and leave Jesus alone with her?

What I think has nothing to do with it.

The Bible does not say what He wrote down, and which means either one of two things:

Either...

It wasn't important enough of a detail to be included.

Or...

The context of the situation should be enough to provide an indication of what He wrote.

Remember that article I provided you with a few weeks ago?

Did you bother reading it?

The author reasoned out logically the most likely scenario.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You own innocence does not mean that you do not approve of evil that you are not practicing though. You should change that. I don't think it is judging or being judgmental to side with God on an issue or matter. If you accept God's Law that is a good thing. If you differ in any point maybe you should consider your motivation for doing such.

I am unfamiliar with conversion therapy, so I can't speak to your comments on that.

Jacob, I am not a fundamentalist or zealot or bound by religious indoctrination of some sort. I don't regard homosexuals as evil simply because they're not attracted to the opposite sex and I don't have a hang up with it. "Conversion therapy" is quackery that supposedly "cures" people of same sex attraction except it doesn't work, has been roundly derided by all health practice and actual science professionals and is largely being made illegal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You:

Homosexuality isn't a crime, that's just fact.

Paul: Homosexuality is a crime worthy of death.

Who should we believe, Arthur? You or Paul?

 

[Lon]

I am unfamiliar with conversion therapy, so I can't speak to your comments on that.

Only God can change a being 2 Corinthians 5:14-17

Conversion therapy is based on the idea that 'man can change man.' It doesn't work because only God can change a man. Conversion, then, is only the work of God. -Lon

 

[Arthur Brain]

You clearly don't.







:deadhorse:



What I think has nothing to do with it.

The Bible does not say what He wrote down, and which means either one of two things:

Either...

It wasn't important enough of a detail to be included.

Or...

The context of the situation should be enough to provide an indication of what He wrote.

Remember that article I provided you with a few weeks ago?

Did you bother reading it?

The author reasoned out logically the most likely scenario.

It wasn't important enough of a detail to be included? Has it occurred to you that the very reason the mention of Jesus writing on the ground but not specifying exactly what was wrote was exactly the entire point? That it required some thought on the reader as to why every person in that mob was convicted by their conscience to leave after He'd finished writing?

Do you need everything spelled out for you?

:think:

 

[Lon]

The problem is that some people believe that the Ten Commandments define right and wrong but other than that the other commandments of the law are not for today. I wouldn't know why the Ten Commandments are for today either.

Yes, it is why I think it a good political discussion and I believe you are correct, that it crosses over into politics in any way that we 'share' common law. It has to do so else we are forced to the lowest common-denominator of man's collective morals and values. If they are naught but animals? We are left to laws for naught but animals. Politics must/necessarily deal with the subject of who we are and whether we are created beings with a higher calling, or are merely 'a little higher' than all the other animals.