People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

It's not. 1st line of defense is to disassociate yourself from the particular crime. How shall we do this ? Well, perhaps describe the event as badly defined and thus not 'techinically' applying to them.Shall we try.You describe homosexuality. Shall we try with 'Man inserting his penis into another man's anus'. Alas, this means a Man performing oral sex with another man, does not qualify , so thats ok. How about a man masterbation another man? Not penetrative so its ok. How about a man simply rubbing up on another man ?Eventually we can write an entire chapter in the Bible about what type of homosexual acts are sin, but is that really neccesary ?Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. It was clearly around in Levitical times, just as adultery, beastiality, masterbation, incest and all the rest. They knew about all those.. but not homosexuality

Usually the texts before and after a verse is pretty much the ‘context’. Those probably make up a chapter, then we read the chapter in context of the book. Thus we will discuss the various chapters in detail. You’re an impressive reader. I’ll make a point however to do just that Done. I hope you don’t mind, I’ve used an application life study Bible to provide popular Christian belief. Since this topic is indeed about Christianity's views on homosexuality, I dont think you should have too much of a problem. I’m afraid to follow my discussion; you might have to have a look at the Book again. I've basically copied Headlines from the Application study. PS. This was the first time I had used this as I prefer to make up my own mind about the text and avoid any bias. In this case, it confirmed my beliefs.Chapters in summary.
Section A : Worshipping a Holy GodLev 1-5: Offerings: Burnt, Grain, Fellowship, Sin, Guilt offerings.
Lev 08: Instructions for the Priests
Lev 09: THe Priests begin their ministry
Lev 10: Death of Nadab and Abihu
Lev 11: Instructions for the people (clean/unclean foods)
Lev 12: Purification after childbirth:
Lev 13: Regulations about infectious Skin Diseases.
Lev 14: Cleansing from infectious Skin Diseases
Lev 15: Discharge leading to uncleanliness
Lev 16: Instructions for the Altar
Lev 17: Eating Blood ForbiddenSection B: Living a Holy life Standards for the people
Lev 18: unlawfull sexual standards
Lev 19: various Laws
Lev 20 Punishments for sin
Lev 21 - 22 Rules for the Priests
Lev 23 : Seasons and festivals
Lev 25 : Sabbath Year
Lev 26 : Receiving Gods Blessing
Lev 27 : Redeeming what is the LordsThe first 17 chapters basically deal with sacrifices (first 5 chapters deals with various types of sacrifices.) Once we are aware of the types of sacrifices, and what constitutes clean/unclean in a ritual sense (note these usually mean you will be clean after a certain period of time OR by sacrifice), we are told about more grave sins and how the people should behave regarding certain sins.
Chapters 18-20 deal with actual sins of the population and punishments for sin. Note, most of there are not something which can be ritually cleansed.Indeed after all the sexual offenses in CH 18, we hear God mention about ALL the offenses (sexual)
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. 29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. If you look at the difference between the first 17 chapters and chapters 18-20, you will notice that the latter offenses are much more grave, indeed the reason that God 'got rid' of the people in that land.
These are not sins because they are acts performed in a ritual sense, they are plain olf fashioned sexual sins. Indeed God is very specific to point out a ritual sexual deed.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD (PS: This refers to child sacrifise)
None of the other offenses mention any ritual acts. God is very specific when referring to such an act. Not really. There are 5 different types of sacrifices. This first 5 chapters discuss every type of sacrifice, does very little in defining what is a sin, merely the rite of sacrificing.
As you can see there are 5 different types of sacrifising.
lev1 : Burnt Offering (make payment for sins in general)
lev2: Grain Offering (Show honour and respect to God in worship)
lev3: Fellowship Offering (Gratitude to God)
lev4: SIn Offering (Payment for unintentional sins of uncleanness)
lev5: Guilt offering (Payment for sins against God and others.)
As you might see, they are very specific as to how the sacrifise should be made. Not rules of cleanliness. Shall we call it spiritually clean , or clean enough to worship ? Notice every thing so far that makes you unclean you can rectify either by sacrifice or by waiting x amount of time. Not necessarily punishment for sin, more along the lines of not being clean for worship.
Yes there are specifics regarding ritual practises. EG: Aaron’s sons, and specifically, how the priests were suppose to worship. Consequences of committing sins and how they were unclean (how long) and that they couldn’t worship while being unclean. Not really ‘allowed’ in other nations, more like sins that they have committed. Things God considered disgusting and didn’t want his people to associate with. So yeah, these actions have defiled other nations.
18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. No Shifting of gears. You make it sound as if you are not allowed to discuss more than one concept per book in the Bible.
As you can see he already discussed various types of sin offerings from the people, priestly duties, various types of uncleanlynesses. All take a different approach to how they had to live. Remember they were at the base of Mount Sinai for 2 years. They were not just going to have to be taught how to worship, they would also need to know what is right or wrong in daily life.
The Chapter is pretty specific about what ritual practises are. As you would have read, it tells specifically how to make sacrifices, the precise order. What you need to sacrifice for each TYPE of sacrifice. EG: sacrifices you need to make if you sinned without your knowledge or just sacrifices of fellowship. However, other than the 10 commandments, the Israelites didn’t know what else was sinful. Lev 18 is not about ritual sexual sins, its about sexual sins. NO DOUBDT other cultures including Canaans had sexual rituals ( as most religions were based on fertility ) , but this chapter is just about sex. When ritual, mention is made, as in verse 21.
Chapter 8-10 is very specific about what the the rituals of priests. So specific that Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu were killed by the Lord for not worshipping correctly. Only Aarons relatives were allowed to become priests. They were, as you know, instructed to the n’th degree on how to perform their duty, what to do, what not to do. The notion of any not having any sexual sacrifice would have been mentioned here, had God thought it was necessary, however his instructions were pretty clear.Now that God has discussed what to do about certain things that made them unclean however and how to atone for those sins, He starts telling us about what is simply not allowed, sins that they were never allowed to commit, which would result in them having to leave Israel or be killed. This is where 18 - 20 comes in.
Note the punishment for most of these sins. Death or banishment. Neither Lev 18, 19 or 20 is specific to ‘Ritual’ cleanliness. As you can see, these are just listing sins.
Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. 14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.All this is still about various Laws. These again do not pertain to any rituals, except where explicitly specified. Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in IsraelChildren of Israel, simply means those from Israel, who were saved from Egypt. ie not ‘Aliens’ hence. It’s also specific to include the fact that those that are not Jews that chose to live in Israel, would also have to live by the same rules as the Israelites. 18: 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Its the same as in Lev 20.
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in IsraelPoint is not that it would be OK outside of Israel, as you see God Despises those that commit those deeds. I will address this issue later though.The main reason ‘children of Israel’ is to specify they were of the generation that was saved from Egypt. It’s specifically there to enforce the idea that Israel belongs to God, and that Israelites were Holy. Notice just how many times the word Holy is used in Lev. That people from other countries sinned was their choice. And no, people outside were not to be killed, only if they chose to live amongst the Israelites. PS: Any Jew that left Israel would still have to abide by the laws to be a Jew.Keep in mind that these were holy people that lived in a holy community. I cant see any willingly choosing to leave their community and living amongst sinners (sacrifice babies, marrying family, homosexual priests ) Think of a Mormon in Las Vegas if you need. I agree that God had to place very hard rules on the people at that time. Particularly because they were litterally surrounded by Pagans, however these rules were not to be discarded. Where do you think most of the Jewish laws came from ?
John 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." At the time there were no Jews outside of Israel. God was telling them the law then and there. It passed on down the ages. No Pork for Jews See summary at the Top. It also discusses the Sabbath, Festivals. Aaagh, perhaps you see the entire point of this discussion. Christians... are not to go about killing those that sin. See New Testament. Thus we accept (in general) anyone who hadn't found God. However... when you try in a Christian Church, convince us that God Blesses something He has explicitly degreed as sinfull, we tend to get upset. In Leviticus the only possible link from the clear homosexual text is ‘unclean’. Link this to 'ritual', link it to ritual ceremony, ... and you get male prostitution.
Leviticus makes special mention whenever anything is wrong 'as part of a ceremony'. It also states sins, whether everyday or sexual. Not male prostitution.
Irrespective, the text is clear that it is gay sex is not to be done (as you seem to agree).
As for the new testament, you will find Jesus echoing the Mosaic Law, however specifically telling us which Levitical laws are unclean. When you research the new testament , you should realise that Paul and other apostles, used the Septaguint as their version of the Old Testament (Translated 300 BC) as opposed to the Masoretic Text 1 000 AD.Again, lets look at
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Timothy 1:10
The word we are looking for here is mankind (Arsenokoites) . We know that Paul used the Septuagint.
The word Arsenos meaning 'male' and Koiten 'intercourse' in the old Septuagint testament.
Ask someone with Greek knowlege to translate 'Arsenokoites. I think I've addressed then all now I hope. The word abomination was not used there. Indeed the word Abomination or Tow`ebah is used just 6 times in Leviticus.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abomination. s; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
(For all these abomination. s have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
For whosoever shall commit any of these abomination.s, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable.customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Religion has rituals. With the Death of Christ, we set up a new covenant with God. Through Christ we can be with God, without Christ that was not possible. It is not necessary to make any sacrifices, as Christ was the final sacrifice.
Christ was the ‘ultimate teacher ‘ . He would have the last say to God’s law.
It was cursing, not swearing. As in ‘I curse you with the plague’ etc.
LIke the Israelites, we should remain spiritually seperate from the rest of the world's wickedness, even though unlike them, we rub shoulders with unbelievers every day. It is no easy task to be holy in an unholyworld, but God doesn't ask you to accomplish this on your own. Through the death of his Son, he will "present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation" (Colosians 1:22) I’d love to agreement with you , but it’s not. Sleeping with your mother does not have to have anything to do with another nations ritual practises. Nor is putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man. God also specifically states Do not sacrifice your seed to Molech. Now that is specific !
He tells us that other nations did those deeds, and because of those deeds, He despised them. Then goes on to mention those deeds. None of these have to do with ‘rituals’ they performed.
Lev 18:27 For all these abomination s have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;
Unless you are trying to suggest that everything in Lev. Is all ritual ? God was pointing out what sins had been committed by the people before the Israelites, whether part of a ritual or just every day stuff. Would children have to curse their parents as part of a ritual ? I still fail to see where you read temple prostitutes in the text from Leviticus. Indeed the only time God mentions any ritual sexual act he specifically states it

21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.The text was not intended to ‘fool’ the people or that only those with great insight could understand the simple commands, these are straight forward commands they could follow. I think it has less to do with ritually unclean and more with abomination. As you can see God is very vivid about what constitutes an abomination as opposed to something that prohibits you from just going to worship for a few days.
Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.* In conclusion, please feel free to reply in 1 or 2 lines if you like. I dont expect you to spend an entire day composing and doing research. If you disagree, feel free to just say so and we can leave it at that and move on with the discussion.sheesh this is my longest post yet cheers

Yes, they devote and entire chapter to what types of Heterosexual deeds are sinfull, yet only 1 or 2 lines about homosexual intercourse. Those 1 or 2 lines said 'Its wrong, penalty death'. Its clear cut. Some types of heterosexual sex was sinfull, others not, however any form of homosexual intercourse is sinfull. If they had devoted an entire page to specific what types of homosexual deeds were sinfull, WOuld you not think that perhaps some deeds were ok... ? Did they spend pages discussing what types of Beastuality were sinfull ? No.Anything that was 'unsure' they discussed in detail. Read up on a woman's period.. the duration for which she was unclean. Very specific when there is any doubdt.The text describes homosexual sex, so they knew what it was. I havent actually. seehttp://EvC Forum: Does the bible condemn homosexuality? -->EvC Forum: Does the bible condemn homosexuality? , indeed it was my response to your questionJust incase you missed it..Mat 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander . 20 These are what make a man 'unclean' ; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "Any better ? Any Levitical sin 'murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander' would still be sins.Why the Jews dont follow it, I dont know.

Nope. See my post to Rei. Having sex with a women during while she's menstruating would still be an grave sin, (counts as sexual immorality).Oh yeah, and no need for animal sacrifised. Christ is the final sacrifise.cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-28-2003]

A man having sex with a woman while menstating, yes.I think my previous post mentioned pretty specifically that we cant go out and kill sinners. Indeed we are told not to and since the death of Christ, these sinners can be forgiven, just like every other sin. It would be up to you however to choose to continue to follow a preacher that purposely sinned against God.PS: I don't mind you asking sincere questions, but seeing as there will be numerous hypotheticals you could ask to try find a flaw in my argument, I'll ask that you think about whether your motive is actuall interest or simply intent to mock.cheers

[qs] [quote]Yes, they devote and entire chapter to what types of Heterosexual deeds are sinfull, yet only 1 or 2 lines about homosexual intercourse.[/quote ]Yes. That's called being vague. [/qs]Not at all. In the same way they were not vague about beastuality. When the explicit command is 'Do not cross that line ', you know whether you burrow under it, or build a bridge over it, or even teleport yourself to the other side, point it. Do not cross that line.The references to Homosexuality and Beastuality are clear and simple, encompasing all homosexual acts and Beastiality acts. Nothing vague about it. Your exact argument can be used for qualifying Beastuality as good, because 'its vague'. We know the Pig was one animal used for sexual rituals, so we might aswell conclude that it also falls under the ritual acts of Canaans. Thus... farm animals are free range. No offense, but I've spend a significant amount of time studying the book and discussing context issues. Atleast address points I have brought up. As you can see there was a specific chapter deligated to sexual acts, followed by laws in general, followed by punishments for sins.Again you want to convince me that 'putting a stumbling block infront of a blind man' was a Pagan ritual ? Sleeping with your neighbours wife a ritual ? Taking your wife and her mother a ritual ?Its about sex. And God mentions these as deeds that the other nations all did. Indeed Jesus refers to the Mosaic Laws (sexual perversions)in the new testament. This I completely fail to grasp. Sorry, but why would gay sex be ANY different from today ? I know quite a few gay people Rei! Some men JUST dont fancy women! Why it would be any different 3 000 years ago, I have no idea ! Again the text tells us , in explicit terms, man-man action is a no-no.This is reinforced by the fact that should homosexuality have been acceptable in common terms, surely the text would have been EXPLICIT to the priests that homosexuality was wrong. The priests have seperate, explicit commands as to their duty. They already know there is NO sexual activities to be had in Worshipping God. Yet you believe still God chooses to spend an entire chapter explaining to the priests about what sexual acts are wrong. Why ? We already know there are to be NO sexual worshipping acts. Now THAT tells you something doesn't it ? One position ? It's called sex. And its in a chapter discussing sex. Right after that chapter it discusses common laws. A good example of environment affecting one's faith. The act of sacrifise was a very specific instruction given directly from God. Indeed the only way for someone to cover their sins. That such a vital part could be removed is interesting.[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-29-2003]

With all due respect, as you might see I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to have a proper discussion regarding the issue, when there have been other attempts at mockery merely to throw the discussion off course. (See Dr. laura letter).While I dont mind taking time to answer (or do research ) for any questions you or anyone else has, I do mind having to spend time discussing certain statements, when the motive could not be sincere.Hope you understand.cheers

Point taken. With that I do not disagree. Human nature it seems is to want to point out the flaws in others, perhaps because it takes the attention away from their own sins. Especially pointing out the grievious nature of those sins, compared to their own sins.Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)The Laws stand. Sacrifises dont, as Christ was the final sacrifise.Christ also specified exactly what was unclean/clean (as I mentioned previously).Anything more specific, feel free to post a list of question. Either way, you should be able to find most of these answers on the net. Or if you like goto Christian Forums and ask. Lots of people there that can help you out.cheers

In that passage Jesus explicitly told his followers that 'unclean' foods were not unclean.A rather significant statement to make (contradicting the Mosaic Laws of the Jews). Considering for 1000 years that you would be unclean for eating a Pig, this is a pretty stunning thing to say to the Jews! He then continues to tell us what types of acts would still be unclean.From this Christians can have a look through the Laws of the Israelites and see if 'hair' and 'cloth' fall into those categories.Mat 10:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander .
20 These are what make a man 'unclean' ; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "You might recall the substantial amounts of text that was spent discussing what types of food was clean/unclean. Even touching
certain types of food made you unclean. Jesus now tells us that all foods are clean. Not only that but he specifies that
the only things that are unclean are "murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander".Thus, we need not concern ourselves with anything other than these offenses. Also worship is substantially more simplistic as
Jesus is the only sacrifise.To get close to God before Jesus's death and ressurection, we had to sacrifise, after Jesus, to get close to God, we still have to sacrifise, but our sacrifise is Jesus. Thus we believe the only
way to God is through Jesus, no more sacrifises required in worship.PS: I'll get to your post later Holmes, maby on Sat/Sun .cheers

You're bordering on just childishness Rei. I've answered your question, so your reply is simple ignorance.But wait shall we see where you go once you've been answered. NoseNed, from this you might see why it's annoying if someone has little interest in an actuall discussion, merely focussed on mockery.Holmes, working on your post at the moment. Cheers

Thanks. I'll try and keep this one short, however its something which is pretty difficult even at the best of times for me Which one was which ? Hopefully that is what we are all here for. Hi, if you look at the chapters in detail, you might see they tend to follow a certain pattern.
Lev 17 : "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel ..."Lev 18: "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel ..."
Lev 19: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel ..."
Lev 20: "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel ... "Lev 21: "1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them ... "
Lev 22 : "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons..."
Thus you can see specific instructions and to whom they were addressed to. Lev 17 is addressed to the Priests, 18, 19, 20 (19 and 20 seems almost to be one passage with the 'again, thou shalt say'), then 21-22 are addressed to the priests.Further down in your post you stated.

quote:

---

Well first of all you are mixing up verses from different chapters. While 19 involves moral guidance to the masses, 18 and 20 do not.
You will note that 18 and 20 are instructions to priests when addressing Israel and the Children of Israel.
In contrast, Chapter 19 is specifically noted as instruction to the priest about what to tell the CONGREGATIONS of the Children of Israel. Is this not extremely suggestive to you? Chapter 19, the only chapter that seems to have simple "thou shalt/shalt not" commandments free of relationship to cleanliness (specifically ritual cleanliness) has the specific word "congregation" which means to the people they are discussing general every day issues with.

---

Lev 18 is addressed to the Children of Isreal, while 19 mentiones the word 'Congregation' (`edah'), this doesn't seem to hold any significant reference (although I could be wrong), especially since the next , chapter (20) continues with "Again, you shall say to the children of Israel:".
I've not listed all the uses of the word 'edah' in Lev, although it pretty much seems to be used loosely as you will see.
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?...
eg: Lev 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.I agree with you that there is no mention of 'unclean', but keep in mind that unclean, does not neccesarily imply 'Ritually unclean.'
The definition of it is unclean,
1. impure
a.ethically and religiously
b.ritually
c. of placesMy second point is that both 19 and 20 have the same verse.Lev19:37: Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. I have little doubdt that 18 and 20 are have to do with customs. Indeed it sais so in the text. Lev 19 however (as you agree) 19 had less to do with 'aborations' and more with things that people clearly do wrong/ Who's to know you're not suppose to wear garments of different types of clothing ? Should you be put to death for this ? This (unlike Lev 18 and 20) were not reasons God would have had people killed for.As you can see, 18 and 20 are addressed to the 'Children of Israel', not the priests. If indeed these were all wrong (only because they were done for worship of another God ), God would have addressed this to the Priests.Lev 18:20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife' ... this suggest sexual sin, not ritual sin.Either way, the important thing here is that God states all these sins as reasons the land got defiled. Customs he found dispicable. Not customs he found dispicable because they were not done in his name, but acts of sin dispicable to him due to their nature.
He is not addressing the specific worshipping of another God, he's addressing things that people did, which he found dispicable about the people. Homosexual sex , being just one of them. I could do that, but then I would have to go ignore all the other possibly definitions of the word 'Tow`ebah' . Here we come full circle as to which translator we should use to teach us Hebrew.You're correct in asuming that you could use 'ritually unclean', however as you will see, all the sins in Lev 18 and 20 would then be considered ritually unclean. By ritually unclean, it seems you are suggesting they are ONLY unclean in a 'ritual' sense, but acceptable in common day use. I fail to see God being so upset about sex being unclean only when used in Rituals, but perfectly acceptable in normal life.Indeed, in the new testament.In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, we find what the Apostle Paul taught the believers at Corinth about judging individuals within their Church. The background of this particular passage involves a man who was a member of their Church and living in open immorality with "his father's wife" (vs.1). Apparently the woman was the man's step-mother and because of his esteemed position in the community, this blatant sin was being ignored.1 Cor 5 vs 1 " It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. "This shows us that that in the Christian sense (and indeed Judaic as Paul was a Jew first and foremost) , they believed Levitical laws to hold true.PS: Paul as you probably know use to be a very fundamental Jew, to the extent that he persecuted Christians. Thus we can see Jews would have lived up to the Levitical Laws. (atleast those concerning sexual immorality). Yes,
I still fail to see why God would allow no sexual acts during worship, yet then make a point of being specific as to which acts are not to be performed during worship. Quite likely some of these could be ritual acts ( in other religions ), but as God is not addressing this text to priest , but to the people, or indicates that this has to do with worshipping Him at the temple, we come to believe that the acts (whether done ritually or sexually) are wrong in everyday life.Worshipping as you can see is very specific, and not sexual.Are you suggesting it would have been acceptable to have straight intercourse with your wife while in the temple, as long as it was not considered an 'aboration' as in Lev 18 ?As I've pointed out that +-1 000 years later these sexual laws would still be in place in the Judaic and Christian community. We can thus only assume that (as you said) either it had become laws for common life, or most likely laws originating as common laws. If any chapter has anything to do with being ritually unclean its Lev 15!Lev 15: 16 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even."There is no punishment for this. He is unclean until the evening. He cannot worship because he is unclean. This chapter is about being ritually unclean, and how to get back to being clean.
Again note though, that none of this is done at an altar while worshipping. These are all about becoming unclean in every day life, same as Lev 18 is about sinning in every day life. Holmes, there was NO sex at worship. Christianity is not a fertility cult . How to worship properly is dealt with clearly in preceding chapters. You have to realise sex had absolutely nothing to do with worship. Indeed, as you read Lev, you might notice how any signs of sex (eg: Lev 15) leaves you ritually unclean, thus you cant go into the temple. No.
Lev 3: 1 And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.Lev 2 is about a grain offering.
Not all sacrifises were about being unclean. Unless I'm mistaken you are suggesting that Lev is just about life in the temple ??We seem to be on a different page here. None of these had to be done in the temple to be unclean. Look at Lev 13 and 14 regarding skin disease and mildew. These have nothing to do with the temple at all. A house becomes unclean! There was NO sex in the temple, no unclean animals.Basically its saying that if you're in the field, and there is a pig, you are not allowed to touch it. Becoming unclean has nothing to do with being in the temple at the time. Anything specific to the temple or worship is mentioned explicitly. Seems we have had vast differences of opinion. If you are suggesting Lev is all about temple life, where did you get this idea may I ask ? No offense, just curious if it was part of Bible study. Nope Holmes, Lev is about various things. Specifically when addressing priests, it states it at the start of the chapter with 'Aaron and his sons' or 'priests'.1-17 is not about 'Life in the temple' and 18-27 about life outside. 1-17 is just more specific (according to Christian belief) about ritually unclean. There would be nothing unclean in the temple, no sex. If however you become unclean at your house, then you cant go inside the temple. People would go to the temple, sorta like people go to church. Indeed when you sin and offer a burnt offering, these are the commands.Lev 1: 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.He is not to enter the tabernacle unclean. No. Not at all. See above. When specific reference is made to priests, the text starts with 'Aaron and his sons' or 'Priests' Sorry Holmes but I'm starting to think you haven't read the text. While Lev was indeed written FOR the Priests, they were instructed on preaching to the people of Israel, NOT JUST how to perform ceremonies in the temple.Israel = Country
Temple = Holy place (much like a church would be today)There were commandments specific for worship in the temple and commandments for the people for everyday life. Which authors , what books ? DO they make the assumption that Levitical law was only 'In the temple' ? David was straight. Again, when confronted with the text , some seem to be able to pick and choose what suits their argument. Probably same author as 'Jesus was gay'. David was God's 'beloved'. There were none Holmes. One author, one book. Both Catholic and local law very strictly opposed homosexuality, thus reading 'adoption' into 'gay sex marriage' is again just a ploy. Hey they call eachother 'brother' ... must be gay. I dont see any Christians doing so either. aagh religioustolerance.orgShall we try Koitai = "coitus" rather ?Personally I have no time for that site. It claims to be a Christian site, but claimes 33% of Catholic Priests have homosexual orientations http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00135.htmlI would prefer if you read that and make up your mind. Too long to discuss.Either way, please be ware of that site. ReligiousTollerance seem to be in conjunction with Liberal Christians ect. Perhaps you can have a look at a more Liberated Christians Polyamory, Swing, Biblical, Sybian Cyber Center
Apparently a pastor there that has 3 somes with his wife and another man. In fact there is no such thing as adultery to them. In those verses, the word 'Sheqets' is used to mean abomination, not 'Tow`ebah' "Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons" or "Priests" Is used to instruct the priests. You have, and also taken 2 1/2 hours out on my sunday ! Jokes.PS: Please try and read about the overview of Lev. Indeed if the entire Lev was about sins in the temple, I could see your point, but its not temple specific. The seperate 1-17 chapters are a suggestion of the 'Worshipping' sections with 18-27 'Living a Holy life.' That does not mean 1-17 is about instructions to the priests regarding life in the Temple. To enter the temple, you had to be clean.Look at the opening and closing paragraphs of each chapter to see who its intended for. The Priests or the People ?cheers

My only suggestion is to join a church and Bible study or buy a book on the matter if you're not satisfied with my answers. I could recommend some if you'd like.Your best bet however would be to read on what Jesus said and indeed the behaviour of his desciples AFTER his death and ressurection. You might note that until his death not all things were as they should be. Many people call themselves Christians. That some are pastors engaging in swing parties, is pretty upsetting. Either way we all have to make our own choices and will be judged by them.Usually a good sign (I find) of a Christian, is someone that's willing to change his beliefs around his faith, even though he/she might not like what is sais, and not the other way around.When Christianity has noticeable social and economic benefits, you will find many proclaiming they are close to God. You been following this discussion ? Anyway, we know not all 'Christians' will be saved.Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.This might give you a little hint as to what to look out for.7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.cheers

Holmes, sorry. Going to dissapoint you now and not fully respond to your post.There is a reason for this. Main reason is that I dont have time! I've spend a mother load of time researching specific phrases, biblical interpretations and considering your opinions earnestly, to see whether plausable or not.In light of that and the fact that we've managed to go pretty much off topic, I have little choice but to summarise and explain to you what most catholics/protestant Christians believe. The solo reason I include these denominations is because they are what the vast majority of christians believe in.If you choose to want to follow ANY path that denounces levitical laws, you will find that MANY people will argue your side.1. Levitical laws dont apply anymore, due to the sacrifise of Christ.
2. Levitical laws dont apply anymore , due to it's time in history.This argument is by no means limited to homosexuals, but indeed some 'Christians' , whether sincere or not , follow this approach.Now I'm gonna pick very certain parts and If we disagree then there is no point in discussing this any further. Your view is different from mine (and the vast majority of Christians). There was 1 Tabernacle. Remember the movie 'Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark', that was the Ark that was stored in the Tabernacle/Temple. It was manned by the tribe of Levites (hence the name of the book Leviticus [ given its name when translated to the septiguint]). People would come to THIS temple to be cleansed of their sins and offer sacrifises to God.Only 1 temple so far, only 1 Ark. I can agree with virtualy everything you said so far with the exception of"and there are rules about the use of sex (among other things) in the course of temple rites and celebrations."YES, WE know other Pagan nations had sexual rituals, but there were NONE for the Israelites. There is NO use of sex in the temple.Holmes, if you spilled semen on yourself you are unclean. If you are still bleeding from menstrating you are unclean. Please you MUST realise that to be with God, there is NO sex involved. They DIDN'T! They had no clue as to how to worship, nor a clue what was right or wrong in daily life! They had to be taught EVERYTHING from scratch. That is the entire reason God made SUCH intensely strict rules. Not only were you unclean for eating an unclean animal, but even for touching such an animal you were unclean! God wanted to make them realise just how perfect a life they had to live to be His people. NOT JUST in worship, but everyday life!All the examples in Lev are about what makes you unclean in every day life! WHY ? Because God is pure and cannot abide sin. Look at what He did to Aaron's sons!You could not approach God in an unclean fashion! And as you can see by the multitude of examples, virtually ANY signs of sex made you unclean, and not worthy to approach God. NO. For your statement to be true you are assuming1. There must have been some level of ritual sex at the tabernacle.
2. Because of that, God then went and made it specific to the people WHICH sexual worshipping acts were wrong.I can't for the life of me, see why God would spend 2 chapters out of 27 telling the Israelites (not the priests !) what type of sexual activity at the temple (ritual) would be wrong, WHEN there is NO SEX of ANY SORT at the temple !Tell me , How did the Israelites know they weren't allowed to sleep with their mothers/sisters/father's wives in everyday life. These are people that do not know God's specific laws. They know the 10 commmandments, BUT THATS IT !Im going to give you a URL. You can use it to study up on Lev. if you so choose.http://www.homestead.com/biblestudiesnet/list2.html Holmes, you offense, but I recall you once saying you did not like going to gay web sources. Liberated/Liberal Christians are unfortuniely a joke. Try learn from people without a noticeable bias or reason to read the text in a certain way.If you want to tell me that a 2 300 year old translation was ALSO gay bias, feel free, but remember its about 1300 years older than the Masoretic text and WIDELY recognised as more accurate. I don't particularly have time to drift off topic to answer that quote, especially not if you want to tell me the Septiguint is less accurate. Why would I possibly be biased ? Shall we even assume he is talking about rituals offending him. WHY do they OFFEND HIM ? Because they are NOT in His name ? NO. These would be rituals that offend him (to the extent that the penalty is death) BECAUSE of the nature of the ritual, NOT the God the ritual is made against. Did you know what certain worship rituals were similar to Pagan rituals ? yet, why does God not mention those here ? baptism ? No.Instead the text is about SEXUAL customs or rituals that are so wicked that they deserve the death penalty. Why is it so impossible for you to believe that there are just plain certain sexual immoralities (As Jesus made note of in the NT) that were just not accepted ? 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.What do you think ? Should we tell homosexuals that you can follow Christ AND get to Heaven ? Don't you think it would be just a little cruel for a man to have issues with being gay, be told its ok , only to find out when he's dead.. 'sorry, you were deceived' ? Believe what you want to believe.1.Even if Paul spells it out for you, clearly there is no way in the bible that you would interpret it as having ANYTHING to do with actual plain gay sex.2. Even if believed Paul was talking about homosexuality, shall we just try and convince ourselves that Paul was a fraud ?3. Jesus is more important that Paul. Paul was a bigot and a homophobe.*** No point in even trying is there ? WHy would he ? Because it's wicked. I have male friends I'm very close to Holmes. I'm very close to my father and brother. Heck, I give them all a hug when I see them. Sexual attraction however is not a factor , no matter how much I care for any of them. I AGREE! Sex (some) was part of Pagan worship, but God made it clear to the priests what would involve worship AT THE TABERNACLE ! There was one tabernacle, one ark. The priests knew what they had to do, and they instructed the people what actions (every day life) would make them unclean and what they had to do to become clean so they could be close to God again. But every day actions ALSO needed to be addressed and clearly SEXUAL IMMORALITY would be something very important. Comon Holmes, Genetic Disorders for one. God has to tell people ... its NOT OK to have sex with your close family! Nothing to do with worshipping Him. The priests were to tell the people ? Whenever they preached, it would be what they had to preach. DEF: "congregation, gathering" . It means people gathering together. Nothing more. That people were congragated together at that point, is very much irrelevant.20.. Just sais 'again say to the people' .. IE: Say more to them. Sorry Holmes, I dont have time to deviate from discussions to answer questions from blatantly biassed websites. Like I said , when you statistically claim 33% of Catholic Priests are gay, please don't expect me to read any of their dribble and have meaningfull discussions with their views. When you try and convince others that God doesn't mind sexual immorality, dont expect others to take you seriously.Excuse my annoyance Holmes, but again I've spent 2 hours , in what seems futility, discussing this topic with you. I dont have 2 hours to spend every night and I touch type !If you have anything new to add to this discussion, let me know, otherwise I suggest you say your final say and make a conclusion. As it is, there is nothing else left to discuss in this topic.My view is that you will always be able to fall back on erroneous translations as your line of defense, and that goes for any Biblical phrase, OT or NT.If you are sincere in your study of Lev. I suggest you study the chapter from a protestant/catholic point of view. You can still use the strong version of KJV Grow in Faith with Daily Christian Living Articles to look up the translations. Not all protestants follow Lev Law, but atleast you can see what they believe the interpretations were about.Otherwise, feel free to stick to your views. I feel I have given them adequate consideration and will actually take to mind some of your views and consider their interpretations. However unfortunitely you seem to be based in what is commonly the 'anti Mosaic Law' category ie: Jesus saves all sinners. Yes Jesus saves all sin, but you must acknowlege and repent your sins, something which you cant do if you dont believe it's sinfull.In either case, at this point I'm sad to say I have set my priorities straight, and there seems little point spending my evenings arguing (not discussing) biblical text.I will however read your conclusion, but you get the last say as cant afford to be an active poster at EvC anymore. EvC was meant to be a very insignificant part of my weekly ruitine, but sad to say its taken too much time.Look forward to occasionally reading your posts in future and seeing how your study of Lev is going (if you so choose to do).Stay well..Z

I've answered this , and posted references to where I've answered this question. You chose to play dumb and contribute nothing to the discussion. Note.. I've actually spent time responding in full detail to those with semi valid points. Every Christian has heard this argument. It's futile. Again, not every 'Christian' will go to Heaven.Levitical Laws apply. Those specified by Jesus. Any Christian that tells you otherwise is either sadly mislead, or trying to mislead you.7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Christianity that adapts to it's environment is not a faith. I dont preach that adultery is better than homosexuality. I accept all God's laws and dont 'adapt' my faith , to suit my personal lifestyle.Guess what, I spend 2 1/2 years abstaining from having sex with my girlfriend (now wife). Any idea how tempting it was to tell myself that God would understand if we didn't wait until married ?There is no bias in me Rei. I'd be a liar if I told you it was ok to be gay, and unfortunitely being a popular guy , is not what being a Christian is all about.stay wellZ

Your argument was bad translations. I've still seen none of those having had a good look at the strong Hebrew translations. If anything, you have simply confirmed my faith in the textual translations. I joined EvC on a recommendation from someone else. Reason was to discuss science, not religion. I belonged to another forum where the Admins ,sadly, were blatantly biassed. Thus I left. Fortunitely for EvC, the Admin/s are pretty good. When however I see a blatantly biassed post such as someone taking quotes from another forum and posting it here to belittle Christians, I find it difficult not to respond , perhaps a flaw of mine. Ironic you mention yes men. Take a carefull look around you Holmes. You didn't seem to understand the fundamental basics of Lev. It was actually a sincere comment, if it came out wrong , I appologise. It's the universal Christian understanding of Lev. I brought up. If you choose not to accept it, there is little point in discussing it any further. Much like there is little point discussing Evolution, if one chooses to flat out deny the existance of mutation. It would be a enjoyable discussing the Biblical text with someone open to discussion. Unfortunitely when I click on your name, all I see are stabs at Christianity, regardless of the content discussed."give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." (Matt. 7:6).Your choice.