If they are both there at the same time, you certainly are. My God man, what’s wrong with you? Where’s the disgust emoticon?
You only think you’re kidding, but in fact, what you’re saying is sort of true, in the converse. It is through that phrasing in the verse that condemns homosexual sex that the Talmudic Rabbis derive that anal sex with a woman is bona fide (snicker) sex for all halachic (Jewish law) purposes.
Even if it’s actually the case that traditional interpretations have been a blanket condemnation of homosexuality there’s nothing to claim that those interpretations are more correct or not merely culturally motivated.
Perhaps newer interpretations form a more advanced society that understands and accepts homosexuality more are actually the more accurate ones.
I always thought the relationship of David and Jonathan was pretty interesting and could be easily seen as a sexual relationship as well as Ruth and Naomi
There’s nothing that clearly indicates a sexual relationship but it does clearly indicate a very deep committed love between people of the same gender.
If God sees the heart and mind of an individual I fail to see how a specific physical act could be condemned. Isn’t it the intent that counts?
:eek: How often does that come up?
Well, the anal sex really doesn’t work unless it has come up.
I believe it’s the point, we can have such a close loving non-sexual relationship with members of the same and opposite sex. Our society teaches us that such closeness indicates sex, under God’s plan He wants us to have the closeness with everyone in the family of God. Paul frequently ends his letters with great each other with a holy kiss.
For those under Christ, not the law, that is exactly how it works. If your purpose is to do the will of God and put Him above all you can violate the law. But those without Christ, are under the letter of the law and will be judged accordingly.
See, that’s what bothers me.
One group of people which I will call “you guys” has to follow every law and rule to the letter, literally (never mind how meanings and definitions and subtle nuances got lost in all the translations). Another group which I will call “me” can call you all sorts of things, threaten you with eternal doom, and make civil laws that force my demands into your privte life.
And yet, if I say the “magic words”, I get to ignore those same laws.
Sorry. I just don’t buy it. It’s a double standard.
It is a double standard, it goes to who is your god. One wants to free you, all the others want to enslave you. One wants to call you his child, the other wants to call you his slave.
And I wouldn’t say ignore, but they are irrelevant as long as you are doing the will of God, disobedience comes with discipline.
Can we please stay on topic?
So Christians can be gay but non Christians can’t. That’s an unusual view.
why so shocked - thought the Rabbis were prudes? They certainly valued personal modesty very highly, but they weren’t afraid to deal with the realities of life.
It comes up pretty much anywhere that sex comes up at all. If someone transgresses the sin of adultery or incest, then they are liable to punishment as much if it’s anal as if it’s vaginal. If a man marries a woman by way of having sex with her, anal will make it as official as vaginal would have. If someone makes a vow to not have sex, it applies to anal as well as vaginal. etc, etc.
My point is that if Jesus set the old law aside and gave a New commandment then The Old Testement doesn’t apply to Christians. They no longer keep Saturday as the sabbath or follow other Jewish rules, so why should the Old Testement be necessay for Christians to follow?
Not exactly, a follower of Jesus is a follower of Jesus and a child of God - that is important as that is his identity from that point on, so this person is not a homosexual, but a child of God doing the work of God.
I can see a case that someone who was a homosexual but is now a child of God, may in his work in reaching the lost, be asked to enter or continue a homosexual relationship in their work of reaching the lost, or they might be delivered of that.
It’s what you place first, your flesh or His Spirit. If you can keep Him first then you are not under any law. But for many the trouble is the lust of the flesh can cause one to stumble and backslide, in which case it is better to avoid it altogether, till you are strong enough to overcome it.
Here is what the Lord warned Cain:
You must be the master over the sin, not make the sin your master.
kanicbird is The Sphinx from Mystery Men?
If that was the point of your previous post, then perhaps you could have mentioned something vaguely related to it in that post.
Regarding this new point -[ul][li]the prohibitions against homosex are repeated in the New Testament, and therefore considered by all (before the revisionist foolishness started) to be part of Christian belief as well, and[*]The moral parts of the Old Testament are not set aside. We are bound by the Ten Commandments, for instance. [/ul][/li]
We have covered this several times before.
Regards,
Shodan
There are no prohibitions against homosexuality in the New Testament. None. Not one. This is not “revisionism,” this is a plain reading of the text. It’s the attempts to argue for some passages as condemnatory of homosexuality which distort and add words to the text.
Where are you getting this bit of creative exegesis? Jesus said the only two commandments that matter are to love God and love thy neighbor. Where does Jesus say you have to follow the “moral” parts of the OT, and how do you decide which parts are “moral?” As a matter of fact, the Leviticus proscription arguably relates either to cultic practices or to ritual purity. It certainly has no ethical significance, so even if we invent a self-serving “moral” category by which we can preserve the ancient tribal laws we like, there is no obvious reason to put “lying with a man” in that category any more than eating pigs or working on the sabbath.
Yes we have, and the the assertion that the Bible contains any clear condemnation of homosexuality has been thoroughly refuted every time.
Only for those under grace, who have been set free by Jesus.
But isn’t that true for all sinners and all sins, according to some Christian doctrines? Why single out homosexuality?
Fine, but just for the heck of it, how about telling us whether you agree or disagree with monavis’ point, which was:
…rather than just saying, “That’s very nice”.