but it seems to me that you are violating both its plain meaning and its context. if something is described as "an abomination to you", that means jews (to whom the Law is addressed) aren't allowed to do it. the same language is used about eating pork. i cannot see a difference in the language which would allow you to eat pork but not have gay sex. besides, as far as we are concerned the "spirit" of the Law is inseparable from the *practice* of the Law. and we say that the Law says "pork bad"-"bum fun bad"-"shabbat violation bad". i can't see how there's a methodology here - it just sounds like you're picking and choosing.
I'm sure you have considered that many of the dietary laws commanded by God were hygienic in nature in the ancient Jewish culture, i.e. eating pork was just plain unhealthy. They didn't have refridgerators or preservatives that we have today, so I can see the value in God keeping His people healthy. But you are right, it is still a command.....for the Jews.
But most Christians are Gentiles. And thus, according to your view, are Noahides, and therefore under the Noahidic Law:
1. The practice of equity.
2. Blaspheming the Name.
3. Idolatry
4. Sexual immorality
5. Bloodshed
6. Robbery
7. Eating limb torn from a live animal.
Since sexual immorality is listed, then it stands to reason that the Noahide might just want to learn what exactly "sexual immorality" consitutes. Where else to go but to the OT and the Mosiac Law. Thus when coming to Leviticus 13:15, we have an understanding that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. It may not be a requirement for Noahides to obey the Law, but we can certainly use it as a guide.
But there is nothing here in the Noahide Law that speaks of dietary laws, with the exception of eating a lib torn from a live animal, so the pork law does not apply.
ok - so reading the text in its context, the "them" refers to the "men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" from verse 18, right? so who are these guys exactly?
Well, the first part of that verse states thus,
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..."
So these are they that have no regard to godly living and live unrighteously. They are the unrepentent. It is not addressing any particular group of people specifically.
so do we - you will note that the punishment for sabbath violation is the same as that for homosexuality - stoning. so they're both seen as equally bad. but are we all lining up to complain about sabbath violation? not on your nelly.
As noted above, Christian Gentiles as Noahides fall under the Noahidic Law, which doesn't contain the sabbath observance, which, oddly, is the only one of the Ten Commandments that doesn't have a corresponding Noahidic Law. But then Jesus stated that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.
ah - but by this logic, there's no point in keeping any of them - might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. that's not the way judaism sees it: see deuteronomy 30:11-14.
"If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;" - Deut. 30:11-15
Exactly. It is not with the outward observance that God wants, but the inward obedience. Didn't God say of Israel in Ezekiel 36:26-28:
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."
in the Text, there are various different words, denoting various different things that G!D is trying to teach us, so it's not as simple as that.
All the same, if you want to dabble in semantics and call one thing a sin and another thing a tresspass, it is still unpleasing to God.
it makes sense if you understand it our way - it was not a sin of eating fruit, but a *choice* - a choice to "choose choice", if you like. without choice, there can be no sin. and without choice there can be no repentance.
but this objection surely falls over when you consider the various different forms of family life that have evolved in human cultures. the monotheist "nuclear family" is definitely not the only game in town. moreover, the documented proof from at least 1500 species of homosexual behaviour in animals, advanced ones like bonobos (pygmy chimps) and dolphins and less advanced ones like those gay penguins (who are nonetheless in a monogamous relationship) at the toronto zoo i think it is. so if it's part of the natural world, how can it possibly be "unnatural"? doesn't this argue that it's been misunderstood? moreover, the society of the animals in question has not suffered.
Yeah, but animals are not create in the image of God.
And what do "cultures" have to do with obeying God?
you may of course not accept this for whatever reasons. i do have to ask, though - if it could be established, for the sake of argument, that animals can be gay and therefore that it is somehow part of the Divine Plan and has some kind of biological necessity, how are you to reconcile this with your faith? i mean, it's not a problem for me, because the acts in question are treated, *in the Text* like pork or sabbath violation - not intrinsically bad in and of themselves, but something jews aren't allowed to do. i cannot find a reason why they would be prohibited to the general population if they occur naturally and cannot be definitively shown to be harmful.
I answered this above with the Noahide discussion.
i would argue the same about violence and lack of respect for property and the environment. in fact, more so. it is hard for me to see how meddling in someone else's bedroom activities is a bigger priority than crime, global warming and terrorism. i don't see how people shooting each other in the street is less of a priority than homosexuality.
Homosexuality, along with all the other things you listed, are but symptoms of a bigger problem: rebellion against God.
Love and grace,
Dondi
