If I was in a relationship I would not be trying to mate with them. I would simply be responding to my God-given desire for companionship and would be responding based on the attraction I was born with. It's quite simple.

I'm sorry but I don't think I'm up to debating the ceremonial/moral law issue. I think I've made it pretty clear that this distinction is a man-made intellectual one and is not based on Scripture. Paul never distinguished between ceremonial/moral law in regards to us no longer being under the law.

If a heterosexual is "celibate in outward behavior" but is looking upon someone of the opposite sex lustfully, are they too rebelling against God? You aren't assuming the homosexual's are less capable of fleeing lustful thoughts than are heterosexuals, are you?

There are several Hebrew words for "abomination."

Ba'ash:

1. to have a bad smell, stink, smell bad
   1. (Qal) to stink, smell bad
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to become odious
      2. to make oneself odious
   3. (Hiphil)
      1. to stink, emit a stinking odour
      2. to cause to stink
      3. of wickedness (fig.)
   4. (Hithpael) to make oneself odious
2. to abhor

Pigguwl:

foul thing, refuse

1. unclean sacrificial flesh (only use)

Shiqquwts:

1. detestable thing or idol, abominable thing, abomination, idol, detested thing

Shaqats:

(Piel) to detest, make abominable, count filthy, make detestable

1. to detest
2. to make detestable

Sheqets:

1. detestable thing or idol, an unclean thing, an abomination, detestation

Towebah:

a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable

1. in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
2. in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

The homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13 is towebah in an ethical sense.

It is what it is. We are no longer under the Law [period]. However, there were certain aspects of the OT Law that were carried over into the NT. It's interesting to note that based on your man-made criteria of moral/ceremonial law the NT church should not have included what they did. Read Acts 15. The NT church carried over "ceremonial" law by requiring that the church abstain from blood and things strangled. How is that a moral law? If it is not, then doesn't that shoot down the theory that the ceremonial law was fulfilled but the moral law still stands?

Also, some of the OT Laws are carried over into the NT (mainly those from the 10 commandments). Just off the top of my head, I belive Sabbath is the only one of the 10 that is not carried over in the NT. Don't quote me, though, I am not a walking Bible. : ) I certainly do not see where Leviticus 18:22 was carried over except for the reference in Romans 1 which, I still believe, is a citation of God turning people gay as a form of divine punishment for their idolatry. I do not see it as a condemnation towards those who are born gay. By the way, I should probably clarify to everyone that though I am open to biblical debate I will never be convinced that I was not born gay. I am the one who has l ived my life and I am the one who knows how I feel, what I feel, and how long I have felt the way I feel. Nobody has any more right to tell me I was not born gay than I have to say they were not born straight [just a little extra piece of information].

The relationship is the mating; we're not talking about procreation here. Homosexual desire is not God-given, it is contrary to God's created design for male and female.



Does this mean we're free to lie, cheat, murder, steal, covet, take the Lord's name in vain, or other such things?



[quote]If a heterosexual is "celibate in outward behavior" but is looking upon someone of the opposite sex lustfully, are they too rebelling against God?[quote]Yes, because looking lustfully is adultery of the heart and, therefore, sin. All sin is rebellion against God.

No, I'm not assuming any such thing. No one is capable of fleeing lustful thoughts if they do not have God's Spirit dwelling in them and if they are not walking in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.

Ok, I am officially having to sign off here for a little while. I am not going to do well on my finals if I don't do some more studying. I will likely be back on here later tonight and will do my very best to respond to those of you who have reminded me that I have not yet responded to your comments. I'm not ignoring you...promise : )

Your reasoning is again faulty, because God does not punish us by causing us to do something that He thinks is fine, but is what the world will persecute one for. If that were the case, then he would give people over to Christianity since the world persecutes Christianity. None of the other things listed as to what God gives people over are innocent in and of themselves, like you claim uncomfortable persecution is. Why should homosexuality stand out?

No, you got my point, but it's just that your reasoning is flawed. Homsexuality is something to which God gives one over because it is damnable, just as in 2 Thess 2 where we read God gives people over to believe a lie and be damned.

He punished based on His spoken Word. That doesn't change the fact that we are no longer under the Law but under Grace. The only Laws that I can rightfully follow are those spoken in His Word in the NT. I do not see where I am condemned under any spoken law carried over into the NT.

So, there is more to God's law than just the Law of Moses? I refer you back to Acts 15. As I said in another post, the issue being addressed was whether the Gentile believers were required to keep the so-called "ceremonial law" (sacrifices, circumcision, not eating "unclean" foods, etc.). However, in what was finally decreed notice that the Gentiles were also to abstain from fornication (sexual sin, all sexual activity outside of opposite-sex marriage, including in one's thoughts).

Fornication is sin even in the New Testament and fornication is any sexual activity that occurs outside of opposite-sex marriage. As for the Law of Moses, if the 10 commandments carried over then so do all the other moral prohibitions. Also, no one is born sexually and romantically attracted to anyone; sexual/romantic attraction (straight, gay or otherwise) develops during childhood. Even if you could prove that you were born with homosexual attraction, that attraction is still contrary to God's created design for male and female. I make it a point to separate attraction (which I very narrowly define as the autonomic physiological and emotional response that we call finding someone attractive) from the sin (embracing and acting on attractions that are contrary to God's created design).

What it comes down to is this: homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design (regardless of how it developed) and, consequently, is something that needs to be healed; homosexual sin (embracing and acting on the attraction) must be repented of and forsaken.

Then, once again, if God punishes using such things as blindness does that mean blindness is not fine? Does that make blindness a sin? Following your argument you would have to agree that being blind is sinful simply because God has used as a form of punishment in the past. I would argue that your reasoning is beyond faulty.



2 Thess says God sent a strong dillussion not that they were give over to one. Again, I have to say that just because God gives someone over to something that is bad (homosexuality, blindness, etc.) does not make that specific thing sinful.

Strongs defintion of fornication NT:4202
porneia (por-ni'-ah); from NT:4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:

I do not see where this lines up with your definition above.

So if orientation is not genetic then what makes heterosexuality "natural" and homosexuality "unnatural?"

Are you willing to say that the 1:100 children born intersexed need to be healed and must repent because they are contrary, by nature, to God's created design?