Compelled to change?

Originally posted by whodey
What do I think of the new covenant established by Jesus? I would say that Christ did not do away with the Mosaic law as he claimed, rather, grace is simply a new device for combating sin. Both the Mosaic law and the era of grace are geared towards fighting sin but in different ways. The Mosaic tactic was to destroy the sinner to destroy the sin. The Chri ...[text shortened]... the law because he introduced loving your enemies that was missing in OT theology in large part.

Are you saying that Jesus was lying?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes you so certain the verses cited in Mosaic Law are meant to be applied to those born as homosexuals as well as those born as heterosexuals?[/b]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Your statement is like asking me, "What makes me certain that verses cited in the Mosaic Law are meant to be applied to adulterers? What makes me certain that verses cited in the Mosaic Law are meant to be applied to murderers?" Either the practice of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God or it is not. If it is not then it is not a sin. If it is not a sin then why is it regarded as such in the Mosaic law? Did Moses get it wrong?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Are you saying that Jesus was lying?

Why do you say that? Christ said that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. That is what I am saying and that is my theology. If not, specifically what law did Christ do away with?

I suppose you could argue that Christ did away with certain laws such as sacrificing animals. Then again, he became the sacrificial Lamb. I suppose you could also argue that he did away with circumcision, then again it is said that Christ circumcised our hearts. Each example is how Chirst perfected the laws of the OT and not how he did away with them. Notice that both animal sacrifice and circumcision are not sins according to Mosaic Law? Christ simply perfected these practices.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Your statement is like asking me, "What makes me certain that verses cited in the Mosaic Law are meant to be applied to adulterers? What makes me certain that verses cited in the Mosaic Law are meant to be applied to murderers?" Either the practice of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God ...[text shortened]... If it is not a sin then why is it regarded as such in the Mosaic law? Did Moses get it wrong?

It depends on why it was written. For instance it may have been directed at those societies where lust was out of control and people were having sex just to have sex regardless of their inborn inclination. The sin may have been that of lust with this as an extreme example. However just as not all heterosexual relationships are borne from lust, neither are all homosexual relationships.

Originally posted by whodey
Why do you say that? Christ said that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. That is what I am saying and that is my theology. If not, specifically what law did Christ do away with?

I suppose you could argue that Christ did away with certain laws such as sacrificing animals. Then again, he became the sacrificial Lamb. I suppos ...[text shortened]... and circumcision are not sins according to Mosaic Law? Christ simply perfected these practices.

Maybe you just have a real problem with properly articulating your position.

I didn't know how else to take the following although I suspected that it wasn't what you intended, so I asked:

I would say that Christ did not do away with the Mosaic law as he claimed

How would you read the above?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It depends on why it was written. For instance it may have been directed at those societies where lust was out of control and people were having sex just to have sex regardless of their inborn inclination. The sin may have been that of lust with this as an extreme example. However just as not all heterosexual relationships are borne from lust, neither are all homosexual relationships.

There is a distinction, however, between heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex outside of marriage. Both are regarded as sins, however, one was punishable by death and the other was not. In Deuteronomay 22:28-30 we see that if a man and woman have sex outside of marriage they are then encouraged to marry verses stoning those who have committed a homosexial act. You could say that men and women who had sex outside of marriage were told to marry to prevent promiscuity, however, why were homosexuals not allowed to marry as the heterosexuals were allowed to marry? If marriage was introduced to prevent out of control sexual activities that you claim the Mosaic law was trying to prevent, why then were homosexuals left out altogether in terms of being able to marry and simply stoned?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Maybe you just have a real problem with properly articulating your position.

I didn't know how else to take the following although I suspected that it wasn't what you intended, so I asked:

I would say that Christ did not do away with the Mosaic law [b]as he claimed

How would you read the above?[/b]

I see what you mean.

Originally posted by whodey
There is a distinction, however, between heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex outside of marriage. Both are regarded as sins, however, one was punishable by death and the other was not. In Deuteronomay 22:28-30 we see that if a man and woman have sex outside of marriage they are then encouraged to marry verses stoning those who have commi ...[text shortened]... why then were homosexuals left out altogether in terms of being able to marry and simply stoned?

Regardless, it still isn't specific enough to address the issue that I raised earlier. It may have made sense to have a more severe penalty for having sex outside of your inborn orientation.

If you still believe in Mosaic Law, would it be right to assume that you believe in stoning, an eye for an eye, etc.

Originally posted by whodey
I am not saying that there is not a possible genetic component to the behavoir. The truth is I don't know. My position, however, is that we are wired for certain sinful behavoirs. For example, for some people all that is required in becoming an alcoholic is taking one drink and they are hooked as where others it has little effect. In effect, we are wired to sin since we were born into sin. The question really is homosexuality one of these sins?

The evidence is that our brains are wired for sexuality at the womb stage on a deep structural level. This is why sexual desire feels so primitve and powerful. It's more like trying to overcome the "sin" of feeling hungry or eating. This is different from other wiring in higher brain structures. There are parts of the brain that can be re-wired and parts that can't . You try holding your breath fro 2 minutes and your brain wiring will give you an uncontrollable desire to breath. It won't let you die. The big question is which part fo the brain is wired for sexuality (if you want to get into wiring).

Also bear in mind that it's not so much genes we are talking about here but mainly testosterone flooding in the womb. We know that people can be born with female DNA , femininised brains and male genitals. But having female(or male) DNA is no guarantee of not being homosexual. Obviously , some processes of sexual development in the womb can go wrong. Is this a "sin" or a form of disability or a lifestyle choice? I know homosexuals who wished they weren't and see it as a kind of disability of sorts. Ask yourself this - If hetrosexuality was described as a sin in the Bible how equiped would you feel to be able to change your sexuality? Would you regard yourself as having a "choice" about it in the same way as you might choose not to steal?

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks, it is nice for a change not to be judged so harshly. Believe it or not, my attempt here is not to judge the homosexual. After all, I there have been no homosexuals in the fray to my knowledge as of yet. My attempt here is only to disallow calling evil good and good evil.

I believe you are not trying to judge anyone. I think you are wrongly bracketing a biological phenomenon with other sins. What do you think that the OT jews would have made of torrettes syndrome if they came across it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ask yourself this - If hetrosexuality was described as a sin in the Bible how equiped would you feel to be able to change your sexuality? Would you regard yourself as having a "choice" about it in the same way as you might choose not to steal?

But a large part of heterosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible. We have a significant amount of sexual desire for women that we are not married to. The desire in itself is, I believe, a sin according to the Bible, acting on the desire is most definitely a sin according to the Bible.
What is interesting though is that Christians often consider homosexual behavior to be a far greater sin than heterosexual misbehavior.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But a large part of heterosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible. We have a significant amount of sexual desire for women that we are not married to. The desire in itself is, I believe, a sin according to the Bible, acting on the desire is most definitely a sin according to the Bible.
What is interesting though is that Christians often consider homosexual behavior to be a far greater sin than heterosexual misbehavior.

However , the condition of being a hetrosexual and having sex with a woman (in marriage) is not considered a sin is it? In hetrosexuality sexual desire can be channelled into what is considered healthy spiritual relationships. With homosexuality there is no way that can happen wihtin the Bible.

Originally posted by vistesd
Summary here:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65214&page=6

_______________________________

The English word abomination has the root meaning of “bad omen.” An abomination is anything considered abhorrent, disgusting, loathsome. Moral wickedness can be abomination, but abomination is not necessarily moral wickedness.

The ...[text shortened]... n in the NT, what was formerly viewed as abominable was declared to be no longer an abomination.

The food in the NT declared clean was in the light of it being sacraficed to idols. Since we know that idols are nothing, it is only refused depending on conscience to the eater or someone with a weak conscience(unlearned).
Abomination according to Strong's is..

8441 tow` ebah (to-ay-baw'😉;

or to` ebah (to-ay-baw'😉; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:

KJV-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you still believe in Mosaic Law, would it be right to assume that you believe in stoning, an eye for an eye, etc.[/b]

No it would not. Especially in light of Christ interceeding for the woman caught in adultery. Notice that he showed her mercy for her sin but, at the same time, acknowledged she had sinned when he told her to go and sin no more. I think had she been caught in lesbian affair, the account would have read the exact same way. Christ did not change around what was sin and what was not sin, rather, he changed how sin was dealt with in a persons life in order to conquer such sin in a persons life.

Originally posted by whodey
No it would not. Especially in light of Christ interceeding for the woman caught in adultery. Notice that he showed her mercy for her sin but, at the same time, acknowledged she had sinned when he told her to go and sin no more. I think had she been caught in lesbian affair, the account would have read the exact same way. Christ did not change around what ...[text shortened]... changed how sin was dealt with in a persons life in order to conquer such sin in a persons life.

What about an eye for an eye? It seems to me that it would now be considered a sin.