To Lesley:

Just coz.

Thanks for the retaliation, Larissa! I need protection!

Anyway....

You're most welcome!

Oh yeah, I don't disagree that what he is doing is wrong. I liked the way you put it in your first post that being gay itself is not wrong - but giving into the temptation to have a gay relationship is. I think that's a very reasonable way of looking at it, because I honestly do think that being gay isn't something (most people at any rate!) wake up one day and decide to be; it's something that they struggle with as part of themselves. Besides, if a straight person can spend their whole life being pure because God hasn't brought the right person in their lives, then so can gay people resist temptation, with a lot of help admittedly. So yes, I do pretty much agree with everything you've said....where I was coming from though was having read the 'Nobel peace prize' thread, where some views seemed to be getting close to "burn all gay people". I find that view quite disturbing.

I like your post Elisabeth.

I agree that Christians tend to make some sins worse than others and forget that being greedy, etc. is just as bad.

I think a lot of Christians make it hard for homosexuals to feel like they can talk to us without being attacked or whatever and that's sad.

As for the 10 Commandments - I just think they're a good set of rules that are really straight forward and all good for us.






Oh Larry-issa

I think some of the mixed material laws could have been (and I don't know for sure) because certain types of material don't go well with each other without ruining the garment, or not allowing your body to breathe. Some of the laws that seem silly to us now were probably put in place for sanitation purposes and all that since they were traveling through the desert for such a long time.
Homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament also in Romans 1:25-27 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

So it's not just mentioned in the OT.

Rebecca - I believe someone above (Sparkling?) has already pointed out that homosexuality is mentioned in the NT, which is why we agreed it was more of a 'universal' type law.

Elisabeth - go ahead! (within reason ) It's interesting to know about some of those laws, as they seem a little too specific at times to be helpful, so it's nice to know the reasoning behind them.

Oh yes, I'd say Elisabeth has the most right to speak about OT Laws and such, given her past couple of years dealing with it all! No need for the soap box
And Bubblies, yeah, the 10 Cs are pretty ingrained into us all from Sunday School that these are the laws to live by, blah blah blah. But as Elisabeth said, Jesus was the fulfillment of The Law, so while the 10 Cs are a good starting point, it's the principles that govern our lives/behaviour that Jesus taught that I believe are "more important". It's not about the actions, it's about the base level - the heart. The attitude behind our thoughts and actions.

Apart from that, I don't really have anything new to add, seeing as Elisabeth has given a pretty good, balanced view of it all!

I just thought someone should speak up for the other side, even if I'm the only one here who believes it. No, I don't think homosexuality is any different from the mixed fibers commandment. They're both sin or neither is. The Law itself does not differentiate between moral and ceremonial, or culture-specific health concerns vs eternal commandments, and it's not referred to this way in the New Testament writings either.

Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality, or homosexual behavior. Paul mentions the behavior, probably, but he's so inconsistent and specific that it's hard to tell what he means in pretty much any situation. We only have his half of the interactions, if that. He's writing to specific groups of people dealing with specific concerns, and he doesn't clarify for us what those concerns were, because he probably didn't expect anyone who wasn't connected with that community and familiar with the situation to ever read them. If you're throwing out the Law, something only Paul mentions and only very briefly and without detail or context is a pretty shaky leg to stand on to say something's sin.