Question about New Testament (with OT)

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:
> I quoted from the NIV Bible:
> > > 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: 
> >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'.
> 
> ... I was taught it meant to have sex with them.  ...edited...  But 
> if it means just the act of lying with a man (i.e. the same sex) is
> detestable, then I think many of us as children committed that 
> "sin".  
> 

bboy_mn:

Sorry, my meaning got obscured by poor paragraph structure. The line
you were suppose to give weight to was (slightly restated)-

'I think for simplicity sake we can agree that 'lie' does not refer to 
'taking a nap'.

The implication being that I was acknowledging that 'lie' DID refer to
sex. Sorry, I guess I should have been a little more direct.


> 
> 
> >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). 
> 
> Um Bboy.  I am lost here.  I define being homosexual as having sex
> with the same sex.  If I love another woman, that does not make me
> homosexual.  The act of physically loving on her does make me
> homosexual.  So if someone who is heterosexual, i.e. is attracted to
> opposite sex, has sex with one of their own sex, then they *are*
> homosexual.  No wait.  They are *bisexual*.  So is that the sin? 
> Bisexuality?

bboy_mn:

Yes, it always gets a little confusing when we use different
definitions. So, hypothetically, I am attracted to men and become
infatuated with men, and even occassionally fall in love with men (not
love, but 'fall in love'), but I never in my lifetime act on those
feelings. Am I gay or not? 

Most people would say yes, you are homosexual or as I prefer, gay,
because being gay is not an action but a state of being. That state of
being is not a sin. To act on it is, by some definition and under some
circumstances, a sin. But the same thing is true of heterosexuals, if
they never act on their heterosexual urges outside of marriage then
they don't sin, and if they do, they do.

Personally, I carry that one step farther and believe that if a male
couple is in a loving commited relationship, then there is love
without harm and therefore no sin. No harm, no foul.

On the point I was originally making, some people act out of a greed
for the pleasures of the flesh, and they don't care how those desires
for pleasure are satisfied. A straight (totally straight) man with no
affection toward, or emotional desire for the intimate company of men,
can have sex with men as a means of satisfying his earthy desire. It's
really just an elaborate form of self-gradification. Also, as someone
hinted at, as an assertion of power and dominance. 

These things do happen, and that doesn't even necessarily make him
bisexual. I see this as a greater form of decadance and sin than two
men who do have affectional desire and are pursuing potential
emotional connections. One goes against his nature because it serves
is decadant desire, the other goes WITH his nature and at least has
the potential for something deeper than pleasures of the flesh.

Keep in mind that I am not dictating reality, I'm stating my beliefs.

> 
> 
> A lady (in a Bible story) in the middle of committing adultery was 
> dragged away during the act by the Pharisees and Sadducees to the 
> square where Jesus was preaching.  I find it sad there was not 
> enough of them there to take the man with them...seems they forgot 
> about him... but I digress.  
> 

bboy_mn:

Sorry to cut so much, but we were in agreement on what was cut above,
so no point repeating it, and I think most people know this story from
the Bible, so I am going to cut it to make a completely unrelated point.

You understand that Adultry at that point in history was a property
law. It wasn't about sex and sin, it was about stealing another man's
property. If a man had sex with a dozen different slave girls,
assuming that they were his slave girls, he didn't commit adultry
because you can't steal your own property. 

So it wasn't about having sex outside his marriage, it was about
taking property that wasn't his. I'm really glad our society, or at
least most of it, has evolved beyond such a materialistic view of
women. As far as I'm concerned that 'women as property' attitude was a
sin in my book. 

I'm also a bit disturbed that most frequently the greatest weight of
punishment fell on the woman, for willingly allowing herself to be
stolen. Or perhaps, for giving away her master's property, to a poor
innocent man who was at the mercy of his natural instincts. It never
fails, they can always find some way to make it the womans fault.

> 
> All I can say Bboy, is that in my faith, God can see all and know
> all.
>

bboy_mn:
And he alone is fit to judge. True faith is between me and my God, not
between me and those who would judge me.


> He does not relish in the acts of those that are blind to their own
> sins and quick to pass judgment on those that do.  
> 
> That does not negate whether or not homosexuality is wrong, it only
> means that those that are so self-righteous to think *they* can 
> bring judgment in this world are wrong. I am sorry you are in the 
> crossfire.  
> 

bboy_mn:
I will give a big AMEN to that.

> 
> Bboy:
> > 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.


> 
> When it is not clearly spelled out in the New Testament, often 
> times, we revert back to the Old Testament to see what God once 
> said. ... in the realm of homosexuality, it is not clear in the New 
> Testament what is God's stance on the issue, as far as I know.  
> 


bboy_mn:

True there may not be a specific statement regarding Homosexuality,
but the principles by which your life should be guided are crystal
clear, and those principles are love and compassion, not hate and
damnation. (a general statement, certainly not directed at you
personally.)

I draw upon my favorite letter by Paul to the Romans 14:13

Let us therefore cease judging one another, but rather make up our
minds to place no obstical or stumbling block in a fellow-Christian's
way. All that I know of Lord Jesus convinces me that nothing is impure
in itself; only, if anyone considers it impure, then for him it is
impure. If your fellow-Christian is outraged by what you eat, then you
are no longer guided by love. Do not by your eating be the ruin of one
for whom Christ died! You must not let what you think good be brought
into disrepute; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but
justice, peace, and joy, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Everyone who
shows himself a servant of Christ in this way is acceptable to God and
approved by men.


 
> 
> 
> Bboy: (org)
> >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.


> 
> I agree. A sin is a sin, and my faith states that all sin is bad and
> draws you away from God.  
> 
> 
> Bboy:
> > 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?
> 
> That is that Catholic view on things Bboy.  Party all night, and
> confess all morning.  Sorry, I joke because I am dating a Catholic. 
> Now *that* is fun religious debates.  
> 
> One might question why you Bboy are choosing to sin then, but I have
> the feeling that you think you are doing no one harm in your actions
> so why should you change?  My thoughts go to The Simpson's and the 
> Flanders' family children.  "Because you make baby Jesus cry."  ;)
> 
> Sorry, that family cracks me up.  Talk about religious paranoia.  
> 
> 
> Melody

bboy_mn:

Regarding my views on HARM, I want to make it crystal clear that I
think most people have a self-serving delusional view of what
constitutes harm. We can look at teenagers for a good illustration.
They feel invincible, so their view of harm is, if it doesn't kill me
on the spot, then there's no harm. Drink 'til you puke, if your still
alive in the morning; no harm, no foul. Or from another point of view;
if I can't see it, it doesn't exist (relative to harm).

When I say 'harm', I mean in every way, and on every front, and for a
lifetime. Again, just because you don't see the harm to a person this
week, or this month, or this year, doesn't mean you won't have done
harm to this person in their lifetime. 

In the essays I wrote and posted a link to on Sex and Sin, I go into
deeper examples of perceived harm and true harm. Harm must be weighed
over a lifetime and it must be weighed on a physical, emotional,
pschological, intellectual, and spiritual fronts. If you can truly say
you have 'done no harm' and 'done some good' on all these front, then
I simply can not find the 'sin' in your actions.

In closing, I wonder how much farther we should take this discussion.
I have truly enjoyed talking with you, and again, I find your views
enlightened, and in line with what I think a true Christian should be
(again, by no means do I imply that you need my approval in any way.
shape or form). I don't require that you agree with me. We certainly
differ on some points, but I see sound sane logic and reasoning behind
you choices, and agree or disagree with me, I still have to admire that.

I'm willing to continue, but I wonder if we aren't drifting a little
too far off group topic. Plus, the problem with religious discussion
is it can never be resolved. It is a debate that goes on forever. And
in the end, it is never the opinion of someone else that matters; it's
me, my God, my faith; a complete set.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn