Again, we are dividing the law into two categories and then making assumptions that one was fulfilled and one was not. Imply all day long if you want, but the Scripture does not make this distinction now matter how you spin it.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28. How can I be judged for breaking a "moral law" if being found guilty requires God to identify me male or female? If God does not see male or female then I think we can accurately assume that any of the law requiring a divine distinction of the sexes has been done away with. This is, of course, an assumption but one that is based on more scripture than your assumption that there is a division between moral and ceremonial law and that the moral law is somehow eternal.

I have been repulsed by the idea of heterosexual intimacy since I was a child. I don't understand how personal repulsion on your part indicates anything.

Why did God inflict blindness? Why did God inflict dumbness? Why did God create the division of races? Why did God confound his original created language? Why did God inflict barrenness? God pronounced and inflicted all sorts of judgements on people for their disobedience but that does not mean are all of His judgements/curses are eternally and inherently sinful.

Real quick and off the subject. I am new to this website and am trying to figure out why some of my comments are posted immediately and others are not. Some appear to need approval yet others posted right away. Can anyone tell me if I am doing something wrong in the way I am posting my comments? Thanks!

There should be no approval required if you are able to post anything.

For some reason when I hit the quote button to respond to a specific comment (as was suggested by another user) I get a message saying my post has to be approved by the moderator. I've posted about three responses today already and none on the message board. Just curious if I was posting the wrong way.

Are you saying God hates the homosexual and that homosexuals are full of demonic power or that only those who say the Bible is not against homosexuality are full of demonic power?

Actually, Brother Blume, the context of Romans 1:18-32 suggests that the entire list of sins from 1:26 to 1:32 stems from humanity's first forays into idolatry those many thousands of years ago. The only proper reading of Romans 1:18-32 is to read it as a progression starting with humanity's rejection of God and worshiping the Creation instead of the Creator and continuing on through various sexual sins (such as homosexuality) and the various other sins on that list. Throughout scripture there appears to be a direct connection between idolatry and sexual sin (not just homosexuality). This, of course, doesn't make homosexuality "innocent" (particularly since there is no such thing as "innocent" after that first sin in the Garden of Eden) but it does seem to suggest to us how these particular sins came to exist. It also doesn't mean that one need be an idolater to engage in any of the sins on that list in Romans 1:26-32. I agree that Paul wasn't just talking about idolaters who just happen to also have been engaging in homosexual sin or who had been engaging in homosexual sin in connection with pagan worship practices, he was talking about homosexuals in general, just as in 1:28-32 he was talking about other kinds of sinners irrespective of whether or not they were engaged in idolatry.

not even gettin into this one...

I agree. Good points.

The point I was making was that in order for God to give someone over to homosexuality, homosexuality must be considered abominable. Not all homosexuals were idolators turned over to homosexuality as a result. But the fact remains that God does not give one over to something that is innocent. And it also remains that homosexuality is considered defilement of people's bodies with one another with or without idolatry involved.

Do not hit the quote button, then. Copy and paste the quotes you wish to quote, and simply use this [ q u o t e ] before the quote and this [ / q u o t e ] afterwards, with no spaces.

I agree that God did not give the idolaters over to something "innocent" or even something that was otherwise not sinful. As for defilement of people's bodies, all sexual sin fits under that classification.

Of course, what's really interesting about all this is how so many people focus on Romans 1:26-27 and ignore verses 28-32. While some people here (not you) would stupidly interpret that as downplaying homosexuality, I'm actually trying to paint those other sins on the list as being worse than other people here on AFF think they are.

But IF the bible shows a pattern or is self explanatory that there is a division in the law as illustrated before, I don't need a verse that explicitly tells you there is one. It's self evident

Can you please explain how saying "moral law" indicates it is "somehow" greater than others?

Let me briefly explain the difference...If God made a law as pertaining to HOW Israel was to be run as a nation, under a king. That is a law pertaining to governance....get that?

If God makes another law that says "you shall not murder" that is a moral law.

One related to personal morality and the other to running a nation.

You asked about where the bible expresses this teaching that the law of Moses has these divisions, yet you pretty much admitted these divisions existed. So are we in agreement here?

Before we move on to other issues, let's make sure we understand what foundations we are in agreement on

I don't mean to sound mean or anything, but in all honesty most of the above is irrelevant to me. You stated earlier that you are willing to have a discussion I believe....based on scriptural evidences. Truth is not based on emotional appeal, nor on personal testimonies. Everyone has a personal testimony as to something they believe or some event that has occured, but it does not validate that belief though it might add an emotional impact to it.

Also, most homosexuals I have met were really bi-sexual, admitting to attraction to both sexes, though maybe not to the same degree. I do not believe God made you that way.

And I don't mean to be crude or even suggest what you are or do is worse than any other sin (not that you see it that way), but might a pedophile ask why God allowed him to be that way or become that way? There are perhaps many factors involved in everyone of us from the time we were children that might forever affect and shape our psyche to cause us to think a certain way or believe a certain way about our own selves. Do we ask "Why did God allow me to be this way"?

I was born a sinner...I was shapen in iniquity. Do I blame God or ask rhetorically why He allowed that to happen?

BTW I do not necessarily subcribe to the notion that just because someone has certain feelings that they are sinning. I have physical attractions to married women, but I do not believe I am condemned as an adulterer just for having that attraction. Nor do I speculate or believe that God made me or allowed me to be that way.

You indicated you are at the moment not involved with anyone...is that simply because you have not found someone or is that because you are trying to remain celibate for moral reasons?

Thank you

You are making some assumptions here that I do not see supported by your passage. Perhaps you should exegize it and the context for us. That someone can only be judged requires God to identify you as male or female was never a requirement that I can think of.

The bible still continues to note the sexual differences between Christian men and women in the New Testament

Lastly, as for the law, Paul said he had not known sin but BY the law. Then he said "shall we continue to sin? God forbid!"

See, Paul is NOT saying that once you are a believer you are now exempt from being righteous or holy or "not sinning"....

Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
Rom 6:13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
Rom 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Paul said the Law is a school master that leads us TO Christ. Because the law shows us the wickedness of our own human condition and just how far away from God humanity really is.

The morality of the law is repeated throughout the NT as well. Also..why would Jesus not only re-enforce the law but even explain things like even looking with lust a person was committing adultery if the law was no longer going to teach us what morality was?

This thread was put into moderated mode...even some of my posts were moderated. Let me see what I can do

Hi Brad. Welcome to the forum.

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but I'd like to ask you, while you admit to being homosexual, do you believe that the lifestyle is an abomination to God, as the Bible says?

Brad,

I have a question for you...not trying to make you any more or less a sinner than anyone else who struggles with sexual issues, but I am curious as to; while participating in UPCI music ministries did you abstain from homosexual relationships for lack of opportunity or because you felt it a sin and wanted to please God?

This is something between you and God and you don't really have to answer if it is too personal.

Blessings, Rhoni

Those things you mention here aren't listed as sins in the Bible. Homosexuality is.

I think most people would agree that to say something is "immoral" is to imply a greater degree of culpability. It would be just as accurate to define what we are here calling "moral law" as "non-ceremonial law" but we do not. We have assigned the term "moral" without any measuring stick for doing so. Is a man touching his wife during menstruation a moral law or ceremonial law?

Just to understand our foundations I will say that I do see there are different types of laws but do not see where the Bible in anyway divides them; stating some are to be applied to all people and others are not. When Paul said we are no longer under the burden of the Law, why didn't he specify which part of the Law he was referring to? I would suggest he did not do so because there was no distinction to be made.

I would suggest that the majority of our doctrines are based on the emotional appeals and personal testimonies of Jesus, His disciples and Apostles. Emotion can never be removed from the human equation, though I was not using emotion to elicit any sort of sympathy from the readers here. I only wanted those writing and responding to understand who they were responding to. It's easy for humans to paint everyone we disagree with using the same paint brush. Not all homosexuals are like those presented in the media. I felt it was necessary for everyone to understand a little bit of my testimony in order to understand me. How can we become all things to all men if we claim knowing them is not important?

Also, we need to remember that pedophilia, adultery, rape, incest, etc. are directed within the sexual orientation of the one committing the act. Homosexual pedophiles molest children of their same sex while heterosexual pedophiles molest children of their opposite sex. Homosexual adulators commit adultery with individuals of their same sex while heterosexual adulators commit adultery with individuals of their opposite sex. Sexual orientation is most definitely a natural inclination and varies from person to person. Any abusive or illegal behavior which takes place within that person’s orientation is a completely different issue altogether.

I do not know how many homosexuals you actually know and have spoken with but I can tell you with absolute certainty that most homosexuals do not claim to be bisexual.

I don't know how else to put it. In order to be judged as "homosexual" God would have to see the biological sex (male/female) of those he is judging as homosexual. Having sexual relationships with a male is only homosexual in nature if it is being done by another male. Therefore, I suggest that if God does not see me as male or female how can he rightfully judge me as homosexual. An even greater question is, "how can he judge me as homosexual if I am not participating in a sexual relationship?"

Thanks for the welcome.

We must clarify that "homosexual lifestyle" can be defined by several different behaviors and not everyone defines it the same. There are homosexuals who are in monogomous relationships and those that are not. There are homosexuals who attend church regularly and those who frequent the bars. There are homosexuals who are single and not even involved with someone sexually and those who sleep around on a regular basis. Many also think of the homosexual lifestyle as Pride Parades and Drag Shows. However, if homosexual lifestyle means being open about your sexual orientation being toward someone of the same gender I do not believe the homosexual lifestyle is an abomination.

I abstained for neither reason. I had opportunity and I have felt reconciled with God for many years. I only abstained out of respect for my Pastors. For example, I do not feel having a television is a sin even though I have worked for Pastors that do. While ministering in their church I respected their views and adhered to them. This is what I did in regards to not participating in homosexual relationships while working for UPC churches.

And the point is homosexuality is included and considered sexual sin.

It is amazing to me the extent that folks will go to, to justify their lifestyles and behavior.

First I would have to remind you that I do not believe the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin. There were definitely sinful homosexual acts prohibited in the OT but there were also sinful heterosexual acts prohibited in the OT. This prohibitions do not make the sexual orientation wrong but the behavior found withing the orientation.

Second, I would point out that menstruation is definitely a curse God placed on women. The OT Law said it was an abomination for a man to touch a woman during menstruation as well as for her to enter the city during menstruation.

Third, I was only responding to a comment made by someone earlier who was implying that the fact that God turning idolaters over to homosexuality proves that homosexuality is an abomination. My only point was that God has pronounced all sorts of judgements on people and the judgement he chooses cannot automatically be defined as abominable.

I believe there were 10 virgins in the parable. They all had oil in their lamps, yet there were 5 that were not prepared for the bridegroom. We just have the personal responsibility to be ready. Someone once said" save them all and let God sort them out."

I don't see where homosexuality is included as a sin at all. It is simply the punishment God gave them over to as a result of their disobedience and idolatry.

Leviticus 18:22 KJV- Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Seems pretty plainly stated to me.

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.