Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Greatest I Am]

Why is homosexuality wrong?

We all know what gays are and what they do. All of God’s laws are responses to a victim of some sort.

The one lied to is deceived.
The one who is killed is deprived of life.
The one stolen from looses his goods.

In the case of homosexuals there does not appear to be a victim or anyone hurt by the actions of the participant.

Why then does God discriminate against homosexuals?
It appears to go against His usual justice.

Regards
DL

[Goat]

Were David and Solomon sinless? Does God point out every single one of our sins to us? Just because the very forefathers of Judaism and Christianity had multiple wives, that doesn't make it acceptable. The bible doesn't tell you to follow in the ways of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon, it tells you to follow in the ways of God. Having multiple wives is a form of adultery. If you are married to one, but you are attracted to another, it is adultery. Jesus makes this all very clear.

No, but in the Old testament, we have examples of where multiple wives are allowed, and no restrictions in the Old testament that it is prohibited.

Wrong. For the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. Deuteronomy 17:16-17 NKJV

The Bible also says, "The TWO (not three or more) shall become one flesh.."

Nowhere in the Bible are gay unions or gay marriages approved by God or seen in a positive light.

Well, you certainly know how to take the words of God out of context. Duet 17:16-17 was a historian that was warning about the habit of using marriages to foreigners as a method of gaining allies. This passage presupposes Solomon's
horse trading and wives for political purposes (kings 23:21-23 and Kings 11.1-8), and was warning against them.

You really should pay more attention to the Word of God, and not corrupt it so much.

Get real. In Genesis 2:24 it says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” The scripture says wife, in the singular, and not wives in the plural. A little chink in your armor.

No, your obtuseness is not the chink in my armor. It does not say there there can not be more than one wife. It just say when a man leaves his family, he will have a
wife to start with. Even the ones that had multiple wives only had 1 wife to start with.

Take a look at Exodus 21:10. That states that when a man with multiple wives does not lessen the status of the first wife.

Duet 21:15-17 puts forth that a man's first born son is the son that is actaully born first, even if he prefers a different wife.

And of course, we must not forget the now obsolete leverite marriage. (see deut 25:5-10.

From a modern perspective, Rabbical Judaism has done away with polygamy for the most part. However, that is not prohibited via the Bible, and has to do with more recent lines of thought. There are still some Jewish groups where polygamy is still allowed, but very rarely (if ever) practiced.
allowed, but very rarely praci

[jgh7]

Do not take multiple wives or else your heart will be lead astray. How is that political? It's stating that having multiple wives will lead one's heart to become corrupted. If it applies to a king, than it can apply to anyone, for a king is a man just like anyone else. Why do you make the very strong assumption that he's corrupting the word? Are you saying it because you truly believe he is, or are you saying it just to make yourself look better and to provoke him in anger?

Why don't you read it in context, and read some proper commentary along with it.

I suggest you get the Jewish Study Bible.

I've read the passage in context. I know how Solomon gave himself to multiple women in his waining years which caused him to turn away from God and erect false idols; it's very sad. I'm just wondering, are you Jewish, and are you religious? I don't quite care for whatever person's commentaries you view as proper. Can you explain why you yourself view this to be strictly a politcal matter and not one of basic morals about how desiring multiple wives will lead your heart to corruptness?

[jgh7]

Were David and Solomon sinless? Does God point out every single one of our sins to us? Just because the very forefathers of Judaism and Christianity had multiple wives, that doesn't make it acceptable. The bible doesn't tell you to follow in the ways of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon, it tells you to follow in the ways of God. Having multiple wives is a form of adultery. If you are married to one, but you are attracted to another, it is adultery. Jesus makes this all very clear.

No, but in the Old testament, we have examples of where multiple wives are allowed, and no restrictions in the Old testament that it is prohibited.

Wrong. For the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. Deuteronomy 17:16-17 NKJV

The Bible also says, "The TWO (not three or more) shall become one flesh.."

Nowhere in the Bible are gay unions or gay marriages approved by God or seen in a positive light.

Well, you certainly know how to take the words of God out of context. Duet 17:16-17 was a historian that was warning about the habit of using marriages to foreigners as a method of gaining allies. This passage presupposes Solomon's
horse trading and wives for political purposes (kings 23:21-23 and Kings 11.1-8), and was warning against them.

You really should pay more attention to the Word of God, and not corrupt it so much.

Get real. In Genesis 2:24 it says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” The scripture says wife, in the singular, and not wives in the plural. A little chink in your armor.

No, your obtuseness is not the chink in my armor. It does not say there there can not be more than one wife. It just say when a man leaves his family, he will have a
wife to start with. Even the ones that had multiple wives only had 1 wife to start with.

Take a look at Exodus 21:10. That states that when a man with multiple wives does not lessen the status of the first wife.

Duet 21:15-17 puts forth that a man's first born son is the son that is actaully born first, even if he prefers a different wife.

And of course, we must not forget the now obsolete leverite marriage. (see deut 25:5-10.

From a modern perspective, Rabbical Judaism has done away with polygamy for the most part. However, that is not prohibited via the Bible, and has to do with more recent lines of thought. There are still some Jewish groups where polygamy is still allowed, but very rarely (if ever) practiced.
allowed, but very rarely praci

I can't pose much of an argument against the verses you have cited. They do seem to be condoning multiple marriages, not to mention servitude and inequality among genders. There's a lot of stuff in the Old Testament that really bothers me, but I can't deny that it is there and that I have faith that it is from God in one way or another. I guess I'll have to concede to you. However, I do believe the New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament, but you don't. I guess that is where our opinions can fundamentally differ.

[Goat]

Do not take multiple wives or else your heart will be lead astray. How is that political? It's stating that having multiple wives will lead one's heart to become corrupted. If it applies to a king, than it can apply to anyone, for a king is a man just like anyone else. Why do you make the very strong assumption that he's corrupting the word? Are you saying it because you truly believe he is, or are you saying it just to make yourself look better and to provoke him in anger?

Why don't you read it in context, and read some proper commentary along with it.

I suggest you get the Jewish Study Bible.

I've read the passage in context. I know how Solomon gave himself to multiple women in his waining years which caused him to turn away from God and erect false idols; it's very sad. I'm just wondering, are you Jewish, and are you religious? I don't quite care for whatever person's commentaries you view as proper. Can you explain why you yourself view this to be strictly a politcal matter and not one of basic morals about how desiring multiple wives will lead your heart to corruptness?

Did you read it in context of the history of Solomon (1 Kings). It wasn't the multiple wives that caused the corruption, it was the use of mutlple wives with foreigners.

And do see the other passages I posted dealing with multiple wives. They wouldn't describe inheritance about multiple wives, or the rights of the first wife when others get introduced if it wasn't accepted.

[Easyrider]

Take a look at Exodus 21:10. That states that when a man with multiple wives does not lessen the status of the first wife.

The word "wife (wives)" is not even in the original Hebrew, Goat.

Exodus 21:10

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” (Ex. 21:7–11)

First of all, the "he" found in verses 7–10 refers to the master. The statute states the following: (1) The girl could not be treated as a common laborer. (2) If the master betroths her to himself, and later changes his mind, she is to be redeemed. (3) If betrothed to his son, she is to be treated as a daughter. (4) If he take another wife, her "duty of marriage" shall not be reduced. And (5) If he refuses to comply with the above requirements, she is to be freed without any remuneration. So the question is: Does this text sanction polygamy, since in the Old Testament a betrothal is legally the same as a marriage?

Notice carefully, the word "wife" is in italics. This is an inserted word, not found in the original Hebrew text. The text should read: "If he takes another." The question is another what? Is this referring to another wife or to another maidservant? Also notice the expression, "and her duty of marriage." According to The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, the word for "her duty for marriage" is translated "furrows" in Hosea 10:10. There the marginal rendering is "habitations." Habitations appears to be the likely meaning of "her duty of marriage" (Exodus 21:10). See A Critical and Experimental Commentary Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown. Since the word "wife" is not used in Exodus 21:10, the text cannot be used to prove that polygamy is sanctioned. What then does the text say? By statute the master is liable for maintaining the maid's standard of living.

http://www.bethelcog.org/GA_PolygamyWho%20Benefits.htm

Duet 21:15-17 puts forth that a man's first born son is the son that is actaully born first, even if he prefers a different wife.

Considering Deuteronomy 21:15–17 we read:

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

This text does not authorize polygamy. Rather, it demonstrates the unfairness that can result because of it. This law was given to protect the rights of the firstborn under such circumstances. Because of an aversion toward one of the wives when polygamy is tolerated there is the ever present threat to supplant the rights of the firstborn (Jerome Bible Commentary). This text points out the mischief that can come from having more than one wife. In these circumstances it is natural to assume that one wife would be favored above the other. In such relationships strife, jealousy, envy, confusion, constant tension, and vexation are bound to exist. What this text illustrates is that monogamy is to be preferred above polygamy.

The truth is if Deuteronomy 21:15–17 authorizes polygamy, then God has violated His own divine ideal given at Creation. A Critical and Experimental Commentary, by Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, gives a likely interpretation as to why this text addresses the issue of inheritance rather than polygamy.

In the original, and in all translations but ours, the words are rendered 'have had,' referring to events that have already taken place . . . . Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a man who has two wives at the same time, but on that of a man who has married twice in succession, the second wife after the decease of the first; and there was an obvious necessity for legislation in these circumstances; for the first wife, who was hated, was dead, and the second wife, the favourite, was alive: and with the feelings of a stepmother, she would urge her husband to make her own son the heir. This case has no bearing upon polygamy, which there is no evidence that the Mosaic code legalized (see Dwight's 'Hebrew Wife,' pp. 17, 18).

One more factor is that the words "beloved," and "hated"´ are in the passive voice, which indicates a condition that was continuous for some time. The perfect tense used for the words "have born" should be translated "bore," showing a completed act. The indication is that the verse refers to past events and concerns itself with the law of inheritance, not polygamy.

http://www.bethelcog.org/GA_PolygamyWho%20Benefits.htm

And of course, we must not forget the now obsolete leverite marriage. (see deut 25:5-10).

That's not multiple wives at the same time, that's after a husband dies. Major reach.

You're 0-3 on those, Goat.

[Easyrider]

(To Goat)

I've read the passage in context. I know how Solomon gave himself to multiple women in his waining years which caused him to turn away from God and erect false idols; it's very sad. I'm just wondering, are you Jewish, and are you religious? I don't quite care for whatever person's commentaries you view as proper. Can you explain why you yourself view this to be strictly a politcal matter and not one of basic morals about how desiring multiple wives will lead your heart to corruptness?

From my experience, Goat's skepticism focuses on primarily on attacking other people's religious beliefs and works (like the Bible and NT). IMO, he has not demonstrated any substantive foundations of his own religious beliefs apart from picking and choosing (no defined criteria for that) what he himself decides is relevant. And most of that, IMO, is based on current political correctness. Which is one heck of a dangerous way to step off into eternity. But he's welcome to believe as he wants. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Easyrider]

(To Goat)

I've read the passage in context. I know how Solomon gave himself to multiple women in his waining years which caused him to turn away from God and erect false idols; it's very sad. I'm just wondering, are you Jewish, and are you religious? I don't quite care for whatever person's commentaries you view as proper. Can you explain why you yourself view this to be strictly a politcal matter and not one of basic morals about how desiring multiple wives will lead your heart to corruptness?

From my experience, Goat's skepticism focuses primarily on attacking other people's religious beliefs and works (like the Bible and NT). IMO, he has not demonstrated any substantive foundations of his own religious beliefs apart from picking and choosing (no defined criteria for that) what he himself decides is relevant. And most of that, IMO, is based on current political correctness. Which is one heck of a dangerous way to step off into eternity. But he's welcome to believe as he wants. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[micatala]

ALthough I have asked many times, no one has been able to present any credible biblical reason to divide the laws into moral, ceremonial etc. It is explicitly given as one law, all to be obeyed by the Hebrews, all indicated to be the commands of God to the Hebrews.

Just do a search in Google on "Bible - moral law(s)." Follow that up with "Bible Ceremonial Law," etc.

I find it ironic that I provide biblical support for an interpretation different from yours and you accuse me of putting man's teachings over God's. Then I ask where in the OT it divides the law into ceremonial, moral, etc. and you say I should check google. Who is really putting man's judgment over God's?

However, fulfilling your request I did the search on Bible moral laws and checked a few sites.


The second site on my search had this to say.

There is often much confusion among some religious groups as to which law we are bound to follow today. Some believe we are to keep both the Old and New Testaments fully. Others believe we are to follow only the New Testament. Still others believe we are to follow the New Testament and only part of the Old Testament. Those who believe this often separate the Old Testament into what they call the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law." They believe the moral law contains commandments that are for all people of all times, and the ceremonial part of the Law that was binding only for the Jews living prior to the time of Christ.

. . . . .

When God gave a specific command to a specific person or group of people, that law was only binding to that group as well.

Note the "those who believe." Clearly some men are creating this division using their own rationale. If you read further on in this site, there is no citation given within the biblical law that makes this division. It is men using one part of the Bible to reinterpret another, using their own assumptions on how to do this.

My point stands. There is no reason to accept the division of the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial etc. Those who say we must consider the OT homosexuality proscription as binding but not the other aspects of this law are making a distinction that is not justified by the very law they are quoting.

You have also not refuted that Jesus explicitly contravenes this law.

I don't see how.

Jesus contravened the Mosaic teaching on divorce and remarriage. Jesus contravened the commandment to take an eye for an eye. You have not addressed this.

You also have not addressed the ambiguity in translation of the terms Paul uses, nor addressed the context that implies these passages apply to a certain group of people identified as having already rejected God.

Show me where homosexual relations (or gay marriage / gay unions) are approved in scripture for either believers or non believers?

You are changing the subject and not addressing the issue I raised.

Next, as another point we should note that even if we only look at Paul, there are several teachings he gives that Christians typically do not accept. According to Paul, women should not teach in church, and they should not cut there hair. Are Christians who do not insist that women be barred from the pulpit patting people on the back on their way to perdition? I don't think so.

You might want to read this:

http://www.raystedman.org/misc/woteach.html

Again, we have an author picking and choosing to place some scriptures as having more weight than others, or choosing to ignore some scriptures on the basis of others. He is doing exactly what I perceive that you are doing.

Finally, the condemnation of homosexuals and the refusal to deal with them fairly violates the most important teachings given by Christ.

Define "condemnation"? No one is saying we are condemning anyone to hell, just that gay sex is a sin, and like any number of other sins, needs to be confessed and repented of.

You have said that those who refuse to insist that gay's must repent are patting them on the back on their way to perdition. I will stand corrected in that you are not pronouncing the condemnation, but you are claiming to speak for God in that you are saying they will be condemned.

That we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and that we should do unto others as we would have the do unto us. By allowing heteroxuals morally sanctioned outlets for sexual activity and not homosexuals, many Christians are in my view violating these most important aspects of the teachings of Jesus.

Love thy neighbor, not the sin. Trying to turn someone to righteousness is loving one's neighbor.

Which is why I continue to attempt to correct those who take your position.

In addition, the Apostles later decide nearly all of the OT law does not need to be followed by Christians.

Easyrider: Not for salvation. But Paul said he upholds the law (as a guide to godly living).

?? I am fine with people suggesting that it is good to follow the law if that is one's choice. Paul does uphold the law in this sense. He clearly does not insist that everyone should be required to follow it. It is also clearly not required for salvation. You continue to ignore scripture which contravenes your view.

You continue to ignore Romans 14. It is up to each believer in his or her own conscience to decide what Godly living means for them.

Fine, then adultery is ok to those who believe that way, thievery is okay, idolatry is ok, etc., etc. That's basically what you're saying.

You are making a great leap and putting words in my mouth. I have said the larger law of love takes precedence over precepts regarding particular behaviors. This does not mean I consider all behaviors OK or that any behavior can be justified under the law of love. I never said this and you are in error in imputing this statement to me.

Adultery violates a commitment to the spouse, and thus there is a victim. A person committing adultery is not acting in love. Neither is a murderer or a thief.

You have not even come close to showing that two gay people engaged in a loving relationship are hurting anyone or violating the law of love.

Fine. Are you willing to insist that all Christians who have divorced for reasons other than spousal unfaithfulness and remarried should repent be leaving their present marriages? If not, it seems to me you have no grounds for objecting to homosexuals making their own determination as to how they follow Christ.

How do you unscramble eggs? My view is to go and don't do it anymore.

Oh c'mon. You accuse me of making excuses for violating scripture and then you come up with this? THis is not scrambled eggs. It's very easy. Alice leaves her second husband Bob and goes back to original husband Chuck.

Nope. There's plenty of ex-gays around. Check the web for "ex-gay(s)."

I have. This is baloney. Even many in the 'ex-gay' movement admit that the 'cured' are not really 'ex-gays'. They are simply managing to maintain celibacy. THey are not ex-gays at all.

Baloney. I've seen too many testimonials. It was either ABC or NBC that did a show with a number of reformed homosexuals, complete with new wives and even new children.

Examples can be found for anything. One needs to consider the preponderance of evidence. Statistics would be the best. If you are convinced by a few isolated examples then you can be convinced of anything.

In addition, these are typically people who are very motivated to present themselves to the world as 'cured.' I have to ask if they really are, especially given how many of them have made such statements only later to say 'well I really wanted to change, but I eventually found it just isn't possible for me.'

I understand you are sincere in your belief that homosexuals are going to hell.

I'll let God sort the hell part out. I'm just saying gay sex is a sin and needs to be confessed and repented of.

And I am saying it is fine for you to decide this for yourself. You err in applying your judgment on everybody else's relationship with Christ.

I hope you understand that I cannot but see the position you are taking as Pharisaic.

I think your position is that way. Like the Pharisees, you are embracing the "teachings of men."

I have clearly based my position on the pre-eminent command to love your neighbor as yourself. I have cited Biblical passages that say what is sinful is a matter between each individual believer and God, not between one believer and another. Your accusation that I am placing man's teaching over God's is false.

However, I reiterate that to insist that gays deny who they are and remain celibate (or worse, engage in self-deception by pretending to be heterosexual) is an outrageour burden to place upon them, and one that we do not expect heterosexuals to bear.

You're welcome to your belief, but I know God / the Holy Spirit, can transform sinners if they cooperate.

I do not disagree that this is possible. However, it is up to the individual believer to decide how to proceed and even if it is necessary to make the attempt. One needs to acknowledge up front that changing from a homosexual to a heterosexual is akin to asking a heterosexual to stop thinking members of the opposite sex are attractive. Why would we even ask anyone to think about attempting this?

The problem I have with the 're-orientation' community is that they seem to think that re-orientation is the only valid response to homosexuality, and that they deny the reality that it more often than not does not work as advertised and often does more harm than good. I am OK if a person on their own attempts to make the change, but I grieve for those who delude themselves into thinking the change is likely to be accomplished. I am strongly opposed to people being coerced or brow-beaten by their families or church members into entering such programs.

I am appalled that many ex-gay ministries refuse to acknowledge their failures or the harm they have done to many people, and that they use false statements regarding homosexuality to justify their approach.

[Easyrider]

I find it ironic that I provide biblical support for an interpretation different from yours and you accuse me of putting man's teachings over God's. Then I ask where in the OT it divides the law into ceremonial, moral, etc. and you say I should check google. Who is really putting man's judgment over God's?

Is murder not still murder in the NT? Adultery still not adultery, etc.? How then is the "Law" in it's entirety done away with then? Common sense would say those particular portions are still releveant, and that would include the prohibitions against gay sex in various NT passages.

My point stands. There is no reason to accept the division of the law of Moses into moral, ceremonial etc. Those who say we must consider the OT homosexuality proscription as binding but not the other aspects of this law are making a distinction that is not justified by the very law they are quoting.

You're welcome to your beliefs. I don't share them on this subject.

Jesus contravened the Mosaic teaching on divorce and remarriage. Jesus contravened the commandment to take an eye for an eye. You have not addressed this.

Since Jesus is the same God who gave the Law to Moses in the first place, he's more than authoritative to revise or extend whatever he chooses, especially since he ushered in the New Covenant. But I don't see any significant moral law (like adultery, murder, gay sex, etc.), that he abolished.

You also have not addressed the ambiguity in translation of the terms Paul uses, nor addressed the context that implies these passages apply to a certain group of people identified as having already rejected God.

I've linked this a number of times:

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas-expanded.html

Easyrider: Show me where homosexual relations (or gay marriage / gay unions) are approved in scripture for either believers or non believers?

You are changing the subject and not addressing the issue I raised.

That's the big elephant in the room you're avoiding: No evidence in the entirety of scripture for either a gay marriage or union, or of the approval by God thereof. Why do you suppose that is?

You have said that those who refuse to insist that gay's must repent are patting them on the back on their way to perdition. I will stand corrected in that you are not pronouncing the condemnation, but you are claiming to speak for God in that you are saying they will be condemned.

No, I'm simply pointing out that God's Word says gay sex is a sin, and that Jesus said to "Repent" of one's sins.

?? I am fine with people suggesting that it is good to follow the law if that is one's choice. Paul does uphold the law in this sense. He clearly does not insist that everyone should be required to follow it. It is also clearly not required for salvation. You continue to ignore scripture which contravenes your view.

Nope, I never claimed "following the Law" earns salvation. But it is a guide for Godly living in numerous instances.

You continue to ignore Romans 14. It is up to each believer in his or her own conscience to decide what Godly living means for them.

Easyrider: Fine, then adultery is ok to those who believe that way, thievery is okay, idolatry is ok, etc., etc. That's basically what you're saying.

Adultery violates a commitment to the spouse, and thus there is a victim. A person committing adultery is not acting in love. Neither is a murderer or a thief.

You have not even come close to showing that two gay people engaged in a loving relationship are hurting anyone or violating the law of love.

Sure I did. Re-read my previous posts in these foras. The Bible itself says it: Love does not rejoice in iniquity. There's all kinds of "love." Love for pedophile relationships, love of money, two adulterers in "love," etc., So, love in and of itself is not necessarily Godly. Sin is destructive to a loving relationship with God. Google "consequences of sin."

Oh c'mon. You accuse me of making excuses for violating scripture and then you come up with this? THis is not scrambled eggs. It's very easy. Alice leaves her second husband Bob and goes back to original husband Chuck.

If that's your solution then go for it.

Jeremiah 3:1 - "If a man divorces his wife
and she leaves him and marries another man,
should he return to her again?
Would not the land be completely defiled?

And I am saying it is fine for you to decide this for yourself. You err in applying your judgment on everybody else's relationship with Christ.

That's between them and Christ. But as for me, I'm not going to sit around and allow America to become another Sodom and Gomorrah. I'll exercise my free speech and right to vote to register my beliefs.

I have clearly based my position on the pre-eminent command to love your neighbor as yourself. I have cited Biblical passages that say what is sinful is a matter between each individual believer and God, not between one believer and another. Your accusation that I am placing man's teaching over God's is false.

Gay sex is a sin, Micatala. You're teaching otherwise, which is a false Biblical doctrine.

I am appalled that many ex-gay ministries refuse to acknowledge their failures or the harm they have done to many people, and that they use false statements regarding homosexuality to justify their approach.

I can agree with that, but I'm appalled that when there are legitimate conversions, many people automatically call them liars or uninformed. The phenomenon is there, and I think God can transform anyone if they would just repent and submit to his leading on that.

[micatala]

I find it ironic that I provide biblical support for an interpretation different from yours and you accuse me of putting man's teachings over God's. Then I ask where in the OT it divides the law into ceremonial, moral, etc. and you say I should check google. Who is really putting man's judgment over God's?

Is murder not still murder in the NT? Adultery still not adultery, etc.? How then is the "Law" in it's entirety done away with then? Common sense would say those particular portions are still releveant, and that would include the prohibitions against gay sex in various NT passages.

I realize I addressed this later in the post you are quoting. However, even below you have ignored the response. Let me reitierate.

Murder, adultery, theivery all clearly violate the law to love one's neighbor. They CLEARLY have victims. Yes this is common sense. No, common sense does not dictate the same applies to gay sex.

Gay sex does not inherently produce any victims. Period. As noted earlier, your 'harms' are either harms we accept routinely from others or are not harms due to specifically to homosexuality or gay sex or are not harms at all.

Jesus contravened the Mosaic teaching on divorce and remarriage. Jesus contravened the commandment to take an eye for an eye. You have not addressed this.

Since Jesus is the same God who gave the Law to Moses in the first place, he's more than authoritative to revise or extend whatever he chooses, especially since he ushered in the New Covenant. But I don't see any significant moral law (like adultery, murder, gay sex, etc.), that he abolished.

If it is your view that Jesus changed the teachings on his authority, then why do you not accept that the OT is not binding, as his precedent suggests?

Again, you are falsely equating homosexuality with murder, adultery, etc., all of which have victims, all of which violate the larger law of love. Your only response to this seems to be that you are loving homosexuals by trying to correct them. You still have not shown that homosexuality of itself violates the law of love.

You also have not addressed the ambiguity in translation of the terms Paul uses, nor addressed the context that implies these passages apply to a certain group of people identified as having already rejected God.

I've linked this a number of times:

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas-expanded.html

I see that the site is very extensive. While I know I have addressed some of these arguments in the past, I will try to take time later to make a response to this.

Easyrider: Show me where homosexual relations (or gay marriage / gay unions) are approved in scripture for either believers or non believers?

You are changing the subject and not addressing the issue I raised.

That's the big elephant in the room you're avoiding: No evidence in the entirety of scripture for either a gay marriage or union, or of the approval by God thereof. Why do you suppose that is?

I think the main reason has to do with the cultural prejudices of the people of the time as reflected in the writing of the authors of the time. Women voting, women teaching men in church (if you want to split hairs), women with heads uncovered, and violent revolution against oppression are also never explicitly approved in the Bible that I am aware of. I'm sure we could find lots of other examples. This argument carries little if any weight. Think about what we would be allowed to do if we only performed actions that were explicitly approved of in the Bible. Not much.

You have said that those who refuse to insist that gay's must repent are patting them on the back on their way to perdition. I will stand corrected in that you are not pronouncing the condemnation, but you are claiming to speak for God in that you are saying they will be condemned.

No, I'm simply pointing out that God's Word says gay sex is a sin, and that Jesus said to "Repent" of one's sins.

How many times have you ever asked anyone to repent of eating shellfish or cutting their hair?

?? I am fine with people suggesting that it is good to follow the law if that is one's choice. Paul does uphold the law in this sense. He clearly does not insist that everyone should be required to follow it. It is also clearly not required for salvation. You continue to ignore scripture which contravenes your view.

Nope, I never claimed "following the Law" earns salvation. But it is a guide for Godly living in numerous instances.

I guess I was not understanding your comment regarding Paul when you said "not for salvation". I agree one can of ones own choice take the OT law as a guide. One is also free to ignore it.

Adultery violates a commitment to the spouse, and thus there is a victim. A person committing adultery is not acting in love. Neither is a murderer or a thief.

You have not even come close to showing that two gay people engaged in a loving relationship are hurting anyone or violating the law of love.

Sure I did. Re-read my previous posts in these foras. The Bible itself says it: Love does not rejoice in iniquity. There's all kinds of "love." Love for pedophile relationships, love of money, two adulterers in "love," etc., So, love in and of itself is not necessarily Godly. Sin is destructive to a loving relationship with God. Google "consequences of sin."

You are practicing semantic skullduggery here, playing on the various meanings of the word love. I am talking agape love as Jesus preached.

Sin is sin because it is destructive of the relationship with God. IMV, this is the defining characteristic of sin. You have not shown this is the case with homosexuality or homosexual sex in all circumstances, but rather have claimed it is destructive because some have defined it as always sinful. You continue to ignore Romans 14. Heterosexual sex can be sinful and destructive based on the context, the circumstances, the attitude of the people involved. However, it is not always so which is why we do not say heterosexuality is sinful. Eating can be sinful in certain situations and contexts, but it is not always sinful. You completely ignore these distinctions with respect to homosexuality, in the same way you ignore the context surrounding many of the verses that speak of homosexuality.

And I am saying it is fine for you to decide this for yourself. You err in applying your judgment on everybody else's relationship with Christ.

That's between them and Christ. But as for me, I'm not going to sit around and allow America to become another Sodom and Gomorrah. I'll exercise my free speech and right to vote to register my beliefs.

Sodom and Gomorrah was not destroyed simply for homosexuality. They sought to forcibly violate others, they were greedy, etc. etc. I am all for preaching responsible sexual behavior, love of one's neighbor, self-control, etc. One can practice all these virtues and still be homosexual.

For my part, I will continue to insist that those who seek to reject homosexuals as part of the church, and even moreso who advocate for discriminatory laws against homosexuals are being both unjust and not following the most important teachings of Christ.

I am appalled that many ex-gay ministries refuse to acknowledge their failures or the harm they have done to many people, and that they use false statements regarding homosexuality to justify their approach.

I can agree with that, but I'm appalled that when there are legitimate conversions, many people automatically call them liars or uninformed. The phenomenon is there, and I think God can transform anyone if they would just repent and submit to his leading on that.

I agree we should not automatically label those who profess conversion as liars. I did not mean to do this, if that is how I came across. We can certainly find examples of those who are uninformed, self-deceived, or perhaps liars, but this absolutely does not mean they all are and we should not make such blanket statements. This is after all what I object to regarding those who label all homosexuals as promiscuous, deceived, lewd, depraved or whatever because some of them might be.

IMV, we should not label those who upon their own self-examination have concluded that they simply 'are gay' as deluded, deceived, or depraved. If they choose to accept themselves as they are, we should accept that as well. Continuing to label them sinners is not appropriate or productive, IMV.