So then you agree that acts of homosexuality were wrong in the OT? What heterosexual act was an abomination in the OT that is now ok in the NT (outside of touching a woman on her period)?

Women on their periods were considered "unclean" and every month went through a purification process that included the priest offering up a sin offering and burnt offering to make atonement for them (See Lev 15:30).

However, Jesus Christ offered himself once and for all; so that there is no more need for sin offerings and burnt offerings. The CERIMONIAL law was fulfilled.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14; and surronding verses for more understanding).

Consequently, menustrating women are no longer "unclean." Therefore, there is no abomination in touching menustrating women today. :cool:

1. God is a Spirit and all that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. HOWEVER; male and female distinctions; just like bond or free distinctions were not done away with in regards to our lives on earth.

If Paul meant his statement in Galatians to be one of total obliteration of roles on earth; he wouldn't have written Philemon the way he did. Instead he would have said. Hey.... there is no bond or free in Christ Jesus. You must release this slave NOW. But that wasn't what he said...

Paul's words in Galatians were about level ground before the cross but not obliteration of distinction otherwise.

2. Even if this were not so; God doesn't need to know if one is a male or female when engaged in fornication. Fornication is a ticket to hell. :cool:

After a while a persons posts are no longer moderated

I've never said "we are under the law" or "we are under certain parts of the law"...

But my points regarding what Paul said of the law in Romans are important and as well....being under the New Covenant God said He would write his laws on our hearts....right? What laws was he refering to? Again Paul said he had no knowledge of sin BUT BY THE LAW...interesting eh?

Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh,

Paul speaks of the hand writing of ordinances and explains a little of what he means
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,
Col 2:14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.
Col 2:17 For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

The Apostles even say circumcision was no longer necessary, yet never once do they say we can do whatever we want...we can lie, commit adultery, worship false gods...those were all forbidden under the law YET are re-interated in the New Testament...why is that?

Here is another of what was abolished under the law
Heb 9:9 For it was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him who did the service perfect as regards the conscience,
Heb 9:10 which stood only in meats and drinks, and different kinds of washings and fleshly ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But when Christ had become a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building
Heb 9:12 nor by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered once for all into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh,

Yet again, Paul said this law leads us to Christ, and that we would not know what sin is except by the law.

Perhaps you do not know what I mean by emotional appeal....You can tell us all you want that you God made you gay and make all sort of feel good arguments or arguments that attempt to make is emotionally feel pity for you or feel guilt...that does not make it God's Truth. God's truth is based on what the bible says. It is not based on what you say, unless you can quote the word. It is not based on stories or anecdotes from days gone by of your times in the UPC. It is not based on how many years you have been out. Im not trying to be crude here, I am setting a ground work for discussion. You mentioned earlier when someone said spirit of homosexuality and insisted all such discussions be biblically based. This is my point, stories and personal histories and appeals to our emotions on YOUR part are irrelevant in a discussion that seeks to determine what the bible says or does not say on a topic. Jesus taugt as an authority from God. The Apostles taught as they were authorized and taught by Jesus...you and I then quote them.

that is what I mean by emotional appeal. It's a logical fallacy

I understood that, but we need to set a foundation for discussion, which is also why we have been discussing the law and how relevant it can be

I was not trying to make an argument about pedophiles or adultery etc etc...if you think that you must have missed my point then. Sin is sin because of what the bible says on it. You can speculate as to why God allows you to be that way, but as I stated already....we can all speculate as to why we are the way we are....what is important is what the bible says and what we will do to be inline with what it says in thinking and actions

Well, what I mean was, most people practicing homosexual lifestyles that I have known have either admitted to me that do or have had attractions to the opposite sex and or have had relations with the opposite sex.

Besides the people that were out and out homosexuals and are not or no longer the church I am in I can also think of those that have had homosexual encounters and relationships and have admitted to having struggles while single with same sex attractions or temptations, but are in committed relationships with members of the opposite sex

But we know God DOES see us as male or female from MANY MANY verses in scripture and in relation to Christian living. That verse you are using is being taken out of context to support a topic it was never meant to support.

Your question is a good question, but I think we should finish some others first. Also I am not sure if you saw that I already touched on this issue or not

That a man was not to have sexual relations with a woman during her menstruation does not make it a curse....though she may feel that way and though her husband who has to deal with her PMS might feel that way too :hypercoffee

Well see that is the problem here....even if they were we have not set a foundation as to whether or not that is even relevant to us in the NT since we are not under the law.

But it would be good to take one subject/verse at a time and discuss it rather than jumping all over the place.

We can start with Sodom, then the law and so on

Exactly, as I pointed out the NT continues to make obvious distinctions between the sexes

What are the homosexual acts that were sinful as opposed to homosexual acts that weren't? Can you name anyone in the Bible who had homosexual relations and wasn't punished?

Homosexuality is definitely listed as a sin, whether you believe it or not. And there are no heterosexual acts listed as sin between a married woman and her husband. Adultery is a sin, yes, but it's not the sex that's sinful, but the relationship between the two parties that is.

I fail to see what that has to do with the conversation, considering you are referring to Jewish law. I'm not Jewish.

I can agree with you on this point.