Question about New Testament (with OT)

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> 
> Leviticus (third chapter of the Old Testament) has a nice list of
> things for a *man* not to do in chapter 18.  ...
> 
> Leviticus 18:22
> "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
> detestable."
> 
> Frankly, I find that to be very cut and dry, myself.
> 

bboy_mn:
I don't think you and I are that far out of sync with each other. I
find your view very enlightened, not that you need my endorsement.

The passage you site about speaks of an action; 'Lie'. I think for
simplicity sake we can agree that it does not refer to 'taking a nap'.
So it speaks of 'to lie', but it doesn't not mention 'to be'.

But here is a another point to ponder. These books are written from a
HetErosexual point of view. For a hetErosexual man to become so
overwhelmed by lust and desire for bodily pleasure that he would go
against his core nature, against his natural instincts, and engage in
sex with another man, is certainly destestable and/or an abomonation
(depending on what version you reference). 

> Melody:
>
> A dear, dear friend of mine pointed me to this comic that fits what 
> I am talking about here.  Also refers to the above verse.  :)
> 
> http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20000814.html
> 

bboy_mn:
Excellent comic, it reflects one of the points I was trying to make
very nicely. 


> 
> Bboy wrote: (org)
> >On another note, the Bible never says homosexuality is a sin; it 
> >says gay sex is a sin, **snip**

> 
> Hm.  Much of that is up from interpretation, Steve.  ... It does not
> require your approval either.  It is what I interpret that The Bible
> is recommending for my life.  
> 

bboy_mn:
Again, I reference the point I made about about the difference between
'to lie with' and 'to be yourself'. 

As far as your comment here, suprising as you may find it, I agree
with you. 

> 
> ...edited..
>
 
> 
> Bboy also wrote: (org)
> >So, in my view, homosexuality is no big deal when you consider that
> >there are 10 times more hetrosexual sinners out there that the 
> >church conviniently leaves out of the discussion.


> Melody: 
> 
> First, Bboy it is "heterosexual".  I only point it out because you
> misspelled it every time.
> 

bboy_mn:
Sorry, I alway read and respond to posts from the website, so no spell
check handy. If I'm in doubt, I usually consult my CD-ROM dictionary.
Must have missed that one.

> Melody: 
> 
> And by that logic, I can murder my next door neighbor as long as I 
> do it quickly and clean up after myself. 
> 

bboy_mn:
I wasn't giving approval to any particular kind of action or sin, the
thrust (no  pun) of my statement was contained in "...that the church
conviniently leaves out of the discussion...".

So many of the most vocal people have no problem saying 'God hate
fags' or 'Death to fags'. But they never get around to 'DEATH' for all
their own sins. Where is DEATH to adulterers? Where is DEATH to
fornicators? Where is DEATH to all the other things in the Bible says
are punishable by death. How very convinient that the Old Testement
DEATH no longer applies when it comes to their sins.

It's really the blatant hypocricy that drives me up the wall.

This brings me to another point I would like to make. Sorry this one
will probably drag on.

I was in Wesley United Methodist Church near the Convention Center in
Minneapolis for a choir concert. I was bored while I was waiting for
it to start, and I started reading some of the books that were place
in the holder in the back of the pews. At the beginning of one of the
books, I found the Constitution of that church. The Constitution said,
that this church did NOT accept that was bound by the Laws of Moses.
Which really says, that it isn't bound by the laws of the Old Testement.

The general feeling amoung most Protestant churches it that the New
Testement supersedes the Old Testement, and outlines a new way of
living based on love and compassion.

Despite the great likelihood that their own religion does not accept
the Old Testement Laws as binding, they very conviniently trot out the
Old Testement when ever it suits them. The are especially quick to
pull it out when condeming other people while ignoring it when it
applies to them. There's that hypocracy again.

Just thought I would point that out.

> Melody:
>
> If you want to be picky, The Bible also says gluttony is a sin.  Do
> you want to tell all these fat Americans that?
> 
> ..edited...
> 
> Melody

bboy_mn:

Let me make one thing clear, I never said that gay sex wasn't a sin.
My position is that it is no more of a sin than hetErosexual sin under
the indentical circumstances. It is a sin, in the view of some, for
you son (generalization, nothing personal) to go to out to a bar and
pick up a girl for a one time sexual encounter; it is equal a sin for
a gay man to do the samething (but with another man, of course).

They are both sin, so why is the world hysterical over one, but very
conviniently ignoring the other, or at least if the do acknowledge it,
it with ->, ->, ;), ;) (short hand for nudge, nudge, wink wink).

As I said, my philosophy is based in-

Do no harm.
Do some good.

The problem is that we all delude ourselves when it comes to a clear
and accurate definition and application of what constitutes 'Harm'. In
many cases, we see no harm, because seeing no harm suits us. But it is
the real harm done, and not our opinion of harm, that creates the sin.

recommended reading (mostly recommended because I wrote it)-
http://www.homestead.com/asian_lovr/files/issues/issues.html

Title- "Is Gay Sex a Sin?"
short version, yes, but so is all sex.

Title- "A Paradox - What Makes Sex a Sin?"
short version, - harm.

Warning: There is nothing unusual on the web page cited above. If you
stray back to the main page, you will find links to adult content;
links which are clearly marked [ADULT].

I'm sinner and I'm sorry ...ummm... if I promise to be sorry again
tomorrow, do you think I could do it again tonight?

bboy_mn