Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[RMDY]

And yet, as Christians we routinely ignore massive chunks of OT law...?

I don't recall involving you with the law of Moses---I merely pointed out Adam and Eve (pre Moses), Moses, and what christians said from the bible (Post-moses) to paint you a picture.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,

And yet, as Christians we routinely ignore massive chunks of OT law... so apparently it IS OK to consider some parts of "God's word" to have changed... or at least,m some parts to have become redundant.

No they don’t, Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who fullflled the law and prophets, this is the new covenant.

Romans 3:21 “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Romans 10:4 “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

See also Galatians 3 and Hebrews 9.

There are about 189 references to the law in the NT and on top of everything else it just demonstrates we have little common ground in our different views. My view is your view isn’t a Christian view at all.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII,

No they don’t, Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who fullflled the law and prophets, this is the new covenant.

Romans 3:21 “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Romans 10:4 “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

See also Galatians 3 and Hebrews 9.

There are about 189 references to the law in the NT and on top of everything else it just demonstrates we have little common ground in our different views. My view is your view isn’t a Christian view at all.

None of whic addresses the core question, why do you feel its OK for you to eat bacon and wear poly cotton blends while its not OK for me to be a homosexual?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't recall involving you with the law of Moses---I merely pointed out Adam and Eve (pre Moses), Moses, and what christians said from the bible (Post-moses) to paint you a picture.

Which has what to do with the topic at hand? Your claim seems to be that my disobedience to the OT is what makes my relationship sinful... OK, so, why are you allowed to eat bacon? Isn't that equally disobedient?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

None of whic addresses the core question, why do you feel its OK for you to eat bacon and wear poly cotton blends while its not OK for me to be a homosexual?

Well yes it does. If you dont believe it does you dont believe what the Bible says.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII

Well yes it does. If you dont believe it does you dont believe what the Bible says.

You're cherry picking Leviticus, thats what I believe, picking the bits you want to condemn others for while happily ignoring the bits that might be uncomfortable for you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

You're cherry picking Leviticus, thats what I believe, picking the bits you want to condemn others for while happily ignoring the bits that might be uncomfortable for you.

Sorry, are you unable to read the Bible? I am not cherrypicking Leviticus, Leviticus is the law, but now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Faith in Jesus Christ is loving Him which is doing what He says as He says if we love Him we obey what He teaches (John 14-15) Jesus NT teaching is that a man and woman shall be in union as one flesh and celibacy is the alternative Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7) and that same sex unions are error (Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1) in fact 1 Cor 6 refrs to Lev 18:22 and Mark 7 and Romans 14 refers to the dietry laws and Jesus also refers to Lev 19 that one must love ones neighbour. I dont follow the law, I follow Jesus fulfillment of the law, so it doesn't matter what I eat or wear but sex is to be within a faithful man/woman marriage.

If you think I am cherypicking then I would doubt you have grasped the fundamentals of Christianity concerning the OT covenants and the new covenent through Jesus Christ.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Sorry, are you unable to read the Bible? I am not cherrypicking Leviticus, Leviticus is the law, but now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
Sorry if you can’t accept what the Bible says it no good you asking me to explain what I think, it is Jesus Christ’s testimony you need to address.

Well that rightness apart from the law makes homosexuality as OK as eating pork. Problem solved.

 

[brightmorningstar]

No it makes eating pork ok (Mark 7, Romans 14) and same sex practice not ok (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, Romans 1, etc)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No it makes eating pork ok (Mark 7, Romans 14) and same sex practice not ok (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7, Romans 1, etc)

You're cherry picking.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartII,

You're cherry picking.

You call it cherry picking what I am actually doing is following Jesus NT teaching. So you must believe Jesus NT teaching is cherry picking.
If you think the OT law should be followed then that is the Jewish religion, as you see cherry picking and we cant, the law the question is for you, as you don’t follow Jesus NT teaching do you advise following all the law or none of it? That’s the question you have refused to answer.

 

[Brennin]

You're cherry picking Leviticus, thats what I believe, picking the bits you want to condemn others for while happily ignoring the bits that might be uncomfortable for you.

This is not difficult. The proscriptions against homoeroticism in Leviticus were reaffirmed in the New Testament; the dietary restrictions were not.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The proscriptions against homoeroticism in Leviticus were reaffirmed in the New Testament; the dietary restrictions were not.

Fine. Then Paul was cherry picking.

 

[Dogbean]

Fine. Then Paul was cherry picking.

It looks like you'll say anything to keep the blame off yourself. You even blame the Apostles!

How logical is that? Not at all!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not that Paul was an apostle or anything...

Now, as to your accusation that I'M cherry picking, please explain how I'm cherry picking when it is my position that either all or none of Leviticus should be in force, rather than selected bits here and there, that are in force sxcept for the bit on page seven, which isn't in force on Tuesdays, but every other Wednesday outside Lent?

Yes, hyperbole *sigh*

But seriously, I'm asking for consistency, how am I cherry picking anything?

 

[Dogbean]

Not that Paul was an apostle or anything...

WHOAH!!! Back up!!!
Not that Paul was an apostle?

Ok, let's take a little look at our favorite book, The Bible!

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—

1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2 Cor 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To the saints in Ephesus,[a] the faithful[b] in Christ Jesus:

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

1 Tim 2:7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

2 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,

2 Tim 1:11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—

So was Paul lying in all these cases?

I do love it when you make it this easy

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Yeah, I know Paul refers to himself as an apostle... but then, I could refer to myself as the queen of Sheba... doesn't make it an accurate version of reality.

Anyway, titles and niceties aside, my point stands. Paul wa cherrypicking, if he was even speaking about homosexuality at all, which is still up for debate.

(you will note, despite much bluster, that here we are at the 72 hour mark and Brenin is STILL unable to cite an pre-500AD example of "sodomite" used to refer to homosexuals)

 

[Dogbean]

Yeah, I know Paul refers to himself as an apostle... but then, I could refer to myself as the queen of Sheba... doesn't make it an accurate version of reality.

Anyway, titles and niceties aside, my point stands. Paul wa cherrypicking, if he was even speaking about homosexuality at all, which is still up for debate.

(you will note, despite much bluster, that here we are at the 72 hour mark and Brenin is STILL unable to cite an pre-500AD example of "sodomite" used to refer to homosexuals)

Every time I make a good post, you change the topic. I really don't appreciate working for over half an hour, digging through the Bible and carefully crafting a post for you to dismiss it in two seconds to have you call it "not an accurate version of reality." Either Paul is right, or you are right and Paul lied 11 times, while saying that he is not a liar. My money is on Paul, for if you were full of the truth and logic and insight you say you are, then you would be much more famous than you are in Christian circles. Face the facts; you don't accept the scripture and use it as a double-edged sword, you reject basic Biblical truths, you go to great lengths to justify sin, and your answer about why you should get into heaven was works-based, not based on grace through faith.

I really hope you consider these things. I'll be praying for you, and your partner, and others I've traded blows with in these threads.

 

[Brennin]

Yeah, I know Paul refers to himself as an apostle... but then, I could refer to myself as the queen of Sheba... doesn't make it an accurate version of reality.

Anyway, titles and niceties aside, my point stands. Paul wa cherrypicking, if he was even speaking about homosexuality at all, which is still up for debate.

(you will note, despite much bluster, that here we are at the 72 hour mark and Brenin is STILL unable to cite an pre-500AD example of "sodomite" used to refer to homosexuals)

I do not have to. Citations abound from at least as early as the 2nd century BCE that associate the sin of Sodom with rampant homosexuality.

 

[Dogbean]

Edit....I'm going to bed.