Leviticus and Homosexuality

[dgirl1986]

Yes, I know. They do.

But it's heresy that should be judged by the faithful and to be a heretic you have to be faithful in the first place.

And even for heretics we pray, since Paul taught us that heretics sometimes repent of which he himself has been put to an example.
Most homosexuals don't even get close to what we define as heresy.

To someone who follows your religion it probably is heresy but to most of the rest of the world it is not. How do you justify christians forcing their religious law onto secular people?

FYI you are talking to a homo.

 

[sojourner]

On account that you cannot follow a conversation, on account that you bare false witness, I have nothing more to say to you on this subject.

All of the conversation had stemmed from addressing "perverse sexual acts" (originally talking about homosexual acts. I wanted to know how you came by your beliefs on that subject. You gave two answers.

Then, there are your other posts, as I outlined above, which you have failed to rebut here. I can only assume by your taciturn behavior that you agree with my assessment of the direction your argument is taking.

With regard to your last sentence: GOOD!

 

[McNap]

To someone who follows your religion it probably is heresy but to most of the rest of the world it is not. How do you justify christians forcing their religious law onto secular people?

FYI you are talking to a homo.

I know. Most of whom follow my religion treat homosexuals as heretics.

And I can not justify christians forcing their religious law onto secular people, since I forgave all secular people that confessed. The only way for my false brothers to come clean is by stopping force and start forgiving along with us.
What I forgave is also forgiven by God or else it would mean that I love you more than God does. If I forgive you, God sure forgives you.
But I'm talking about real sins.
For you it's not a sin if you go to bed with a homo you love.
Whatever sin you confess, I forgive.
It's what Jesus ordered me to do.
If another brother doesn't believe that I forgave you, then I would feel like he betrayed God. As if God is smaller than I am and that He deserves to be murdered for His lack of love. But I want God to be alive. Forever.

 

[Parsimony]

Well why not? Why wouldn't animal behaviour be as the basis for what human behaviour should and should not be?

After all, we are animals.

Every behavior should be judged on its own merits and consequences as to whether it is right or wrong instead of simply saying "If animals do it, then it is right" or "If animals do it, then it is wrong". Yes, we are animals, but not all animals behave in the same manner. A behavior that is beneficial for one species may be disadvantageous to another.

They have learnt a lot about human behaviour from testing on animals back when it was legal to perform inhumane studies.

Which is not the same as saying that we should look to other animals when deciding what is morally acceptable or unacceptable.

 

[Agnostic75]

The moral of the story: animal behavior should not be used as a basis for what human behavior should or should not be.

Nor should human behavior be used as a basis for what animal behavior should or should not be. For example, humans may destroy most, or all human life with global warming. Other animals would not be able to do that.

 

[Parsimony]

Nor should human behavior be used as a basis for what animal behavior should or should not be. For example, humans may destroy most, or all human life with global warming. Other animals would not be able to do that.

Correct.

 

[sojourner]

I think we have to remember, in basing our moral compass off of the written biblical text, that the biblical text was only one part of the whole religious tradition, and that text was not conceived to be as absolute or authoritative as many sola scriptura Protestants would like to believe. The Jews have always relied on commentaries and other teachings -- as well as considered reasonable opinion -- to help them decipher what those written words mean.

Here's an example: A friend of mine is an attorney. He once told me that, in applying (modern) laws (which are written), one stretches them in real application (as opposed to theory), to see just how far they will stretch and bend, in order to be effective in real time. My question is this: if our modern laws, which are conceived as written documents, can be stretched, tried, contracted, bent, and shaped such that they are effective in real life, why can't the biblical laws (which were not conceived of as written documents, but as orally-transmitted concepts) be treated the same?

Here's the thing about a largely oral society and the stuff it produces: orally-transmitted information is not intended to be hard-and-fast; it's malleable. I opine that the Levitican Law was such -- at least until it was written down and rendered unchangeable. I further opine that it was never treated as absolute as-written until the Protestant sola scriptura crowd came along.

Therefore, there's no real reason for 21st century Americans (or anyone else) to be held to such a strict standard of moral behavior, when we know these things:
1) the ancient concept of homosexual acts was perceived quite differently than it is now, due to lack of medical and scientific knowledge
2) some of the nuanced, critical meaning of the texts may be lost in translation across language and culture,
3) the law was never intended to be absolute in the first place.

I suggest that we lighten up on our sisters and brothers who identify as homosexual, and refrain from such absolute moral and social condemnation of them, until we receive something absolute upon which to base our judgment.

 

[lily_r]

Yes. You are.

The bible (until the advent of sola scriptura during the Reformation) was never intended to be "followed." Jesus, through the whole teaching of the Church, is what is to be "followed."

We're not ignoring the passages. We're simply not taking them at face value, realizing that they represent a cultural and scientific POV that simply is no longer relevant. We don't "ignore" the creation myths, either, but we certainly don't take them at face value when we know they don't jibe with scientific discovery about the origin of the planet.

No. it doesn't "stand as an objective definition of truth." It stands as a highly subjective and particular theological treatment of the human story. That's partly why you're confused.

No, it isn't. First of all, the writers didn't know about homosexuality as an orientation -- and they certainly didn't think it was a healthful and natural expression of one's sexual identity, as today's experts in the human psyche know it to be. The homosexual act, as presented by the biblical texts is entirely cultural.

As a seminary-trained member of the clergy with denominational standing, I suggest that you learn a lot more about the biblical texts, cultural anthropology, and biblical ethics before you consider teaching and preaching.

Let's clear a few things up here. I am seventeen years old. Excuse me for not having my M.Div. But I can tell you this, you don't need a degree to believe in the Bible.
The original intent of the Bible was to stand as truth. It was written to be understandable to the general person, not only a trained religious clergyman. If you believe it is the word of God, then it is not to be manipulated and adjusted to according to whatever your mood happens to be that day. If you are using the Bible to cater to your wants and needs (as I said above), then, sorry, you're doing it wrong. It becomes no longer a unique expression of God's Word, judgement, and love, but merely another religious text that we can take the "nice things" out of.
That's why I'm confused. I do not know if you are a supporter of pluralism and/or syncretism, but if you want to say that the Christian religion is the "right" religion, then the Word of God cannot be subject to the opinions of today.
I am not discouraging ongoing research and scrutiny, as those are essential to being true followers of Christ. But justifying God's commandments as mere "cultural context" to fit what you want to be right?
That's not what it means to be a Christian.

 

[sojourner]

you don't need a degree to believe in the Bible.

This isn't about belief in the bible. It's about discovering the reality of the texts, where they came from, how and why they were developed, and going beyond simply taking the texts at "face value" as far as what they say. The texts have many layers of information that each deserve to be scrutinized, for they will yield treasures of information, poetry, theology, and ecclesiology.

The original intent of the Bible was to stand as truth.

The original intent for the bible was for it to be a written repository of the various historic and cultural strains of oral Tradition of the faithful, including history, poetry, prophecy, law, and mythology.

It was written to be understandable to the general person, not only a trained religious clergyman.

It was written to be understood by those who could read at the time. Then those people translated the written messages to the illiterate masses. Those people charged with that task were (generally) the clergy.

If you believe it is the word of God, then it is not to be manipulated and adjusted to according to whatever your mood happens to be that day.

It is the word of God through the eyes, and cultural and intellectual lens of the writers. The texts were originally oral (with the exception of the epistles and Revelation). They were told, retold, translated, and finally written down. Several authors worked on the texts, blending different strains of the compendium of Tradition. Editors and redactors cobbled together bits and pieces. Teams translated ancient languages into Hebrew and Greek, and later teams translated into other languages. Councils decided what texts should be included and what texts should not. The texts have been manipulated since the very beginning, because the bible was a work-in-progress that spanned several centuries before it emerged more-or-less in the form we have now.

If you are using the Bible to cater to your wants and needs (as I said above), then, sorry, you're doing it wrong.

Which is why we have to be very, very careful in making arbitrary judgments about what the bible says based upon social, emotional, or intellectual comfort, instead of coming to considered conclusions based upon deep and serious study of what the authors meant and intended. In order to do that, we have to be honest about what the bible is and what it was intended to be.

That's why I'm confused. I do not know if you are a supporter of pluralism and/or syncretism, but if you want to say that the Christian religion is the "right" religion, then the Word of God cannot be subject to the opinions of today.

You're confused because you haven't grasped that the faith (including the bible) isn't a static, unchanging thing. It is living, growing, changing, developing, even as we live, grow, change and develop. It is subject to the opinions of today, because today is where we live, and that's what the bible needs to speak to.

justifying God's commandments as mere "cultural context" to fit what you want to be right?
That's not what it means to be a Christian.

The commandments are cultural context, though. Even Jews will tell you that the commandments and laws have always been translated, mitigated, relaxed, changed, stretched, in order to maximize their effectiveness for any given generation. The laws were never meant to be immutable.

In fact, it is those who insist that "the bible condemns homosexuality" who are doing the things you deride here: "fitting" them in order to reflect what they want to be right.

I hope that you do go on to study the bible and theology in a well-rounded, liberal education and then go on to teach, preach, and reach people with good news. You've obviously got the passion; now you need a broad theological education, both undergraduate and at the graduate level. Then you can be an effective teacher.

 

[Sonofason]

I dont think that sexuality should be the basis for judging a persons character, but a lot of people still do.

I become very confused by statements such as this. You speak of this notion of judging a person's character. What exactly does this mean, "judging a person's character"?

God set down a set of rules that mankind is required to follow. Some people reject the notion of God altogether, and so their particular opinions of what God might have said regarding particular behaviors is rather arbitrary and of no significance whatsoever with regard to discussions about what is morally good or bad according to God, at least the God who inspired Leviticus.

People such as myself do not treat homosexual persons any differently than anyone else, unless of course that person is doing some obvious or blatant harm to others. Otherwise, they are, quite simply, just another sinner, like myself, just another someone who is in desperate need of God's mercy, God's forgiveness, God's grace, and of course God's Son Jesus Christ.

However, this is a debate and discussion forum, and the topic is Leviticus and Homosexuality. It is obviously impossible to state one's opinion on this topic, that is of course if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without offending homosexuals and homosexual advocates, especially when such persons are offended by the notion that what they are doing is displeasing to God.

I'm not sure why an atheist would care about such things, but I suppose everyone wants to believe they are "good". But honestly, no one is. We all need Christ. But really, it doesn't do anyone any good to live under a false notion of self-righteousness.

If you want to believe that God is okay with homosexuality, then you're going to have to find another god to worship, because you've got the one true God all mixed up with your own self righteous notions about what a God should be.

Sinners need to repent from their sins in order to have a relationship and fellowship with God. At the least, they need to acknowledge their sins. You must believe God in order to be a Christian. I don't care if you can tackle all of your sins, but you at least must admit your sins to God in order to be forgiven for those sins that you commit. If you can't stop your sin, ask God for help.

Maybe He won't help at all. Maybe God won't let you repent of all of your sin. Maybe God knows something you don't know about you and your sin. Maybe you'd become a terrible person without your particular sin. But it's sin nonetheless, and it must be admitted as such, or you'll never know God. We cannot deny the truth of God and expect God to be merciful toward us in the end, which by they way is coming very quickly for all of us.

I do not judge a person's character by their sins, but I would never condone them, nor would I ever encourage them. Homosexuality is sinful, and you can try to paint all kinds of rosy pictures about it, and it will still be sin.

Good Bless.

 

[McBell]

Let's clear a few things up here. I am seventeen years old. Excuse me for not having my M.Div. But I can tell you this, you don't need a degree to believe in the Bible.
The original intent of the Bible was to stand as truth. It was written to be understandable to the general person, not only a trained religious clergyman. If you believe it is the word of God, then it is not to be manipulated and adjusted to according to whatever your mood happens to be that day. If you are using the Bible to cater to your wants and needs (as I said above), then, sorry, you're doing it wrong. It becomes no longer a unique expression of God's Word, judgement, and love, but merely another religious text that we can take the "nice things" out of.
That's why I'm confused. I do not know if you are a supporter of pluralism and/or syncretism, but if you want to say that the Christian religion is the "right" religion, then the Word of God cannot be subject to the opinions of today.
I am not discouraging ongoing research and scrutiny, as those are essential to being true followers of Christ. But justifying God's commandments as mere "cultural context" to fit what you want to be right?
That's not what it means to be a Christian.

Is everyone who disagrees with your opinion of what the Bible says "subjecting the Bible to the opinions of today"?

 

[sojourner]

I become concerned whenever Deity is expressed in rigid terms. I think we have to remember that, whatever else our loyalty to Deity implies, that loyalty represents a relationship. We have a relationship with God when we "believe in" God. And relationships -- especially relationships that are the stuff of love -- require malleability. It is not love when one person has all the power, holds all the cards, makes all the rules, receives all the benefits, owns all the property, and takes all the responsibility. In that sort of relationship, one partner is clearly objectified.

That's simply not what we find in the biblical story, though. In the bible, we find a relationship of true reciprocity. God gives humanity sovereignty to make our own decisions -- to be the lords of our own lives -- to be our own people. God "does not punish as we deserve." God "holds back God's hand." Jacob is renamed Israel, because he struggles with God and prevails (implying an evenly-matched contest). People bargain with God, and guess what? God changes God's mind! Where God is concerned, we are the kings and queens of creation. We co-create with God in the world. In our relationship with God (as Jesus tells us) we are "no longer slaves, but siblings." That indicates some significant level of mutuality in the Divine relationship.

Even within human relationships, such as parent/child relationships, there is this sort of mutuality that increases as maturity increases. Good parents know when to relax the rules, know when to allow the children greater sovereignty with regard to personal expression -- and good parents respect the individuality and creativity of their children.

God is often claimed to be "unchangeable," but I think we misunderstand what that means. It means that God's nature of love is constant. It means that God remains steadfast in God's devotion to us. It means that God continues in God's fidelity. It doesn't mean that God is intractable, that God holds rules above our best interests, that God's judgment is absolute. This is borne out in the mercy that Jesus shows to sinners, in the bargaining that goes on between God and the faithful. And, it's shown in the way that the Jews have always handled the Law. They have never treated the Law as absolutely literalistic. There has always been room for interpretation, clemency, and even retraction.

For the Christian, there has been a paradigm shift in the Divine relationship. Once, the relationship was of a contractual nature: "If you do these things, I'll do these things." Then God changed the dynamics, and the relationship became more of a familial nature: We are daughters and sons. We are shown that we can call God "Daddy," and "Brother," and "Friend." Families reconcile differences and do not punish each other.

I think that, when we hear such absolutist statements as:
"God said it,"
"It's one of God's rules,"
"God's morality can't be compromised in order to assuage our desires,"
"If that's how you feel, then you'd better worship another god,"

we turn God into some sort of old curmudgeon, sitting on the front porch in a wifebeater and holding a can of Falstaff, going, "Yew kids git off my lawn!!!"

Our relationship with God indicates some greater level of mutual respect than that. Homosexual identity and expression represent the wondrous diversity, color, and creativity -- both of the created order, and our way of celebrating that created order. And when that identity is expressed in mutual love and support, I think God respects that sovereignty of ours and celebrates with us -- even if someone, at some point, thought God abhorred it. Even if, at one time, God did abhor it. I think that the love relationship God has begun with us demands God's malleability on this point. I think that God is capable of ameliorating such harsh judgment in light of our level of maturity in the knowledge of ourselves and our world.

I think these sorts of arguments in favor of God's intractability sell short the love in which we were created, and the love and respect in which we are held by God. I think the poster is correct when she says that our sexual orientation shouldn't be held against us as a character flaw. Regardless of "what the bible says." The bible was made for humanity -- not humanity for the bible.

 

[serp777]

My grammar is not up for discussion.

" I guess if the animals have told this new found fact you should be able to find a article that shows long term relationships in animals. "



As I thought, sporadic behaviour. No long term relationship. They do not even think about what sex they are.



You are saying that because animals are gay then we can be gay as well. I am saying that because animals eat their young then by your logic we can it are young as well.

Why can you not see that. I expect you to see the connection, English teacher and all. You should have said, according to your logic, not mine, "Did you know lions also eat food? Does that mean we should eat food as well - yes, it does. You cannot twist your logic onto me. I do not believe that we should act like animals.



What has evolution got to do with anything. If you want to class yourself as an animal well that is up to you, you are probably right, but do not speak for me, I have different beliefs. Homosexuality is not in question here, it is anal sex that is wrong. Homosexuality is fine.



That last sentence is a personal attack on me. It has nothing to do with the debate. Attack the post not the poster. I will not report it but I would direct a moderator to act on it.

Now the above sentence is typical of my word predictor getting it wrong. It inserted direct instead of expect.

If that's considered a personal attack, then your comment about brainwashing was at least equal. Please report it. Any mod is not going to take your report seriously, especially after provoking by claiming that I am brainwashed.

" If you want to class yourself as an animal well that is up to you, you are probably right, but do not speak for me"

You are an animal. You are apart of mammals, and apart of a species of primates. It's basic biology that you're denying here. Your genome is 98% similar to a chimpanzee, and 75% similar to a fruit fly. Doctors could transplant pig arteries in case you had a a heart attack, because our genomes are so similar. Our physiology is so similar to rats, that the drugs you have taken were first tested on those rats. You're ignorant if you deny this. Being an animal is not bad, and why you assume it is is ridiculous.

If you want to deny reality, that's your prerogative, but do not tell me what the facts are.

"As I thought, sporadic behaviour. No long term relationship. They do not even think about what sex they are. "

Assertion.
"
Elephants
Further information: Elephant#Mating
African and Asian males will engage in same-sex bonding and mounting. Such encounters are often associated with affectionate interactions, such as kissing, trunk intertwining, and placing trunks in each other's mouths. Male elephants, who often live apart from the general herd, often form "companionships", consisting of an older individual and one or sometimes two younger, attendant males with sexual behavior being an important part of the social dynamic. "

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elephants clearly recognize each other and appreciate companionship. Again this reflects your ignorance and ability to do your own research on animal homosexuality. The fact that you think animals can't recognize whom they're having sex with is a gross generalization and another ignorant statement which has no proof.

"You cannot twist your logic onto me. I do not believe that we should act like animals."

So logic defeats you and you deny it on the basis of twisting? Pathetic. Lions eat food, poop, and have sex. We do many similar things, which would classify us at least partly an animal.

"You are saying that because animals are gay then we can be gay as well. I am saying that because animals eat their young then by your logic we can it are young as well. "

Again, this is a terrible argument. Since lions eat feed, then we should avoid eating food so we aren't like animals. You can't have it both ways. I'm not claiming that we should do everything that animals other than humans do, but you given no argument at all, or evidence, for why homosexuality is bad or shouldn't be allowed; other than your moral preconceptions from bronze age palestine. There would be arguments and evidence for why eating children is bad--our society depends on murder being illegal.

 

[dgirl1986]

I become very confused by statements such as this. You speak of this notion of judging a person's character. What exactly does this mean, "judging a person's character"?

To judge a persons character is to judge them as a person based on the below...

character
ˈkarəktə/
noun
1.
the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.
"running away was not in keeping with her character"
synonyms: personality, nature, disposition, temperament, temper, mentality, turn of mind, psychology, psyche, constitution, make-up, make, stamp, mould, cast; More

God set down a set of rules that mankind is required to follow. Some people reject the notion of God altogether, and so their particular opinions of what God might have said regarding particular behaviors is rather arbitrary and of no significance whatsoever with regard to discussions about what is morally good or bad according to God, at least the God who inspired Leviticus.

People such as myself do not treat homosexual persons any differently than anyone else, unless of course that person is doing some obvious or blatant harm to others. Otherwise, they are, quite simply, just another sinner, like myself, just another someone who is in desperate need of God's mercy, God's forgiveness, God's grace, and of course God's Son Jesus Christ.

And i usually respect people who take this approach.

However, this is a debate and discussion forum, and the topic is Leviticus and Homosexuality. It is obviously impossible to state one's opinion on this topic, that is of course if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without offending homosexuals and homosexual advocates, especially when such persons are offended by the notion that what they are doing is displeasing to God.

I'm not sure why an atheist would care about such things, but I suppose everyone wants to believe they are "good". But honestly, no one is. We all need Christ. But really, it doesn't do anyone any good to live under a false notion of self-righteousness.

If you want to believe that God is okay with homosexuality, then you're going to have to find another god to worship, because you've got the one true God all mixed up with your own self righteous notions about what a God should be.

Sinners need to repent from their sins in order to have a relationship and fellowship with God. At the least, they need to acknowledge their sins. You must believe God in order to be a Christian. I don't care if you can tackle all of your sins, but you at least must admit your sins to God in order to be forgiven for those sins that you commit. If you can't stop your sin, ask God for help.

Maybe He won't help at all. Maybe God won't let you repent of all of your sin. Maybe God knows something you don't know about you and your sin. Maybe you'd become a terrible person without your particular sin. But it's sin nonetheless, and it must be admitted as such, or you'll never know God. We cannot deny the truth of God and expect God to be merciful toward us in the end, which by they way is coming very quickly for all of us.

I do not judge a person's character by their sins, but I would never condone them, nor would I ever encourage them. Homosexuality is sinful, and you can try to paint all kinds of rosy pictures about it, and it will still be sin.

Good Bless.

In regards to the debate in relation to Leviticus and Homosexuality...there are many things the bible labels as a sin but todays christians do not so I think it is completely debatable.

Atheists usually care when christian law is being forced upon them.

Personal experience speaks to his non existence so I do not fear what will happen with I die.

 

[ScuzManiac]

If you want to believe that God is okay with homosexuality, then you're going to have to find another god to worship, because you've got the one true God all mixed up with your own self righteous notions about what a God should be.

Who are you to tell someone that they can't worship the same God as you?

And the one true God? On what basis?

Your God is as much of a man made deity/mythological figure as any other God.

:yes:

 

[dgirl1986]

Who are you to tell someone that they can't worship the same God as you?

And the one true God? On what basis?

Your God is as much of a man made deity/mythological figure as any other God.

:yes:

Logically following the bible and worshipping the bible do not have to be compatible. I could worship my computer if I wanted to lol

 

[sojourner]

Logically following the bible and worshipping the bible do not have to be compatible. I could worship my computer if I wanted to lol

And the great part is that your computer saves!

:computer:

 

[dgirl1986]

And the great part is that your computer saves!

:computer:

Bahahaha

 

[CMike]

I become very confused by statements such as this. You speak of this notion of judging a person's character. What exactly does this mean, "judging a person's character"?

God set down a set of rules that mankind is required to follow. Some people reject the notion of God altogether, and so their particular opinions of what God might have said regarding particular behaviors is rather arbitrary and of no significance whatsoever with regard to discussions about what is morally good or bad according to God, at least the God who inspired Leviticus.

People such as myself do not treat homosexual persons any differently than anyone else, unless of course that person is doing some obvious or blatant harm to others. Otherwise, they are, quite simply, just another sinner, like myself, just another someone who is in desperate need of God's mercy, God's forgiveness, God's grace, and of course God's Son Jesus Christ.

However, this is a debate and discussion forum, and the topic is Leviticus and Homosexuality. It is obviously impossible to state one's opinion on this topic, that is of course if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without offending homosexuals and homosexual advocates, especially when such persons are offended by the notion that what they are doing is displeasing to God.

I'm not sure why an atheist would care about such things, but I suppose everyone wants to believe they are "good". But honestly, no one is. We all need Christ. But really, it doesn't do anyone any good to live under a false notion of self-righteousness.

If you want to believe that God is okay with homosexuality, then you're going to have to find another god to worship, because you've got the one true God all mixed up with your own self righteous notions about what a God should be.

Sinners need to repent from their sins in order to have a relationship and fellowship with God. At the least, they need to acknowledge their sins. You must believe God in order to be a Christian. I don't care if you can tackle all of your sins, but you at least must admit your sins to God in order to be forgiven for those sins that you commit. If you can't stop your sin, ask God for help.

Maybe He won't help at all. Maybe God won't let you repent of all of your sin. Maybe God knows something you don't know about you and your sin. Maybe you'd become a terrible person without your particular sin. But it's sin nonetheless, and it must be admitted as such, or you'll never know God. We cannot deny the truth of God and expect God to be merciful toward us in the end, which by they way is coming very quickly for all of us.

I do not judge a person's character by their sins, but I would never condone them, nor would I ever encourage them. Homosexuality is sinful, and you can try to paint all kinds of rosy pictures about it, and it will still be sin.

Good Bless.

Very well said.

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason had written:

I become very confused by statements such as this. You speak of this notion of judging a person's character. What exactly does this mean, "judging a person's character"?

dgirl1986 responded:

To judge a persons character is to judge them as a person based on the below...

character
ˈkarəktə/
noun
1.
the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.
"running away was not in keeping with her character"
synonyms: personality, nature, disposition, temperament, temper, mentality, turn of mind, psychology, psyche, constitution, make-up, make, stamp, mould, cast; More

Okay, you have shown what character is, but you have not shown me what it is to "judge" a person's character. If I should dislike a man for eating small children, if I should think that his actions are detestable, would that be judging the man's character, since such a person has the disposition of eating small children?

Sonofason had written:

People such as myself do not treat homosexual persons any differently than anyone else, unless of course that person is doing some obvious or blatant harm to others. Otherwise, they are, quite simply, just another sinner, like myself, just another someone who is in desperate need of God's mercy, God's forgiveness, God's grace, and of course God's Son Jesus Christ.

dgirl1986 responded:

And i usually respect people who take this approach.

Well, thank you. That is good to know.

Sonofason had written:

However, this is a debate and discussion forum, and the topic is Leviticus and Homosexuality. It is obviously impossible to state one's opinion on this topic, that is of course if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, without offending homosexuals and homosexual advocates, especially when such persons are offended by the notion that what they are doing is displeasing to God.

I'm not sure why an atheist would care about such things, but I suppose everyone wants to believe they are "good". But honestly, no one is. We all need Christ. But really, it doesn't do anyone any good to live under a false notion of self-righteousness.

If you want to believe that God is okay with homosexuality, then you're going to have to find another god to worship, because you've got the one true God all mixed up with your own self righteous notions about what a God should be.

Sinners need to repent from their sins in order to have a relationship and fellowship with God. At the least, they need to acknowledge their sins. You must believe God in order to be a Christian. I don't care if you can tackle all of your sins, but you at least must admit your sins to God in order to be forgiven for those sins that you commit. If you can't stop your sin, ask God for help.

Maybe He won't help at all. Maybe God won't let you repent of all of your sin. Maybe God knows something you don't know about you and your sin. Maybe you'd become a terrible person without your particular sin. But it's sin nonetheless, and it must be admitted as such, or you'll never know God. We cannot deny the truth of God and expect God to be merciful toward us in the end, which by they way is coming very quickly for all of us.

I do not judge a person's character by their sins, but I would never condone them, nor would I ever encourage them. Homosexuality is sinful, and you can try to paint all kinds of rosy pictures about it, and it will still be sin.

Good Bless.

Actually, I really ought to modify this last comment of mine. It's just not completely true. Sometimes I do judge a person's character because of their sins. My question to you in my first response here is an indication of that. Some sins are so detestable and the depravity of those individual committing those sins is such that it can NOT go unnoticed. If I saw a man eating a small child, I'd probably be a good judge and send him to meet his maker. If your sins are such that you are doing no grave harm to others, perhaps I can overlook them, but not all sin. Some people are pure evil, and we should recognize them when they are in our midst. And judge them.

dgirl1986 continued:

In regards to the debate in relation to Leviticus and Homosexuality...there are many things the bible labels as a sin but todays christians do not so I think it is completely debatable

I believe that everything God has ever said was a sin is still a sin. I guess I'm not a "today's christian" by your standards. As I said, I am not in the habit of condoning sins, or trying to find means to justify my sins. And I don't believe other Christians ought to do that either. Such person's in my opinion make a mockery of the entire text.

dgirl1986 continues

Atheists usually care when christian law is being forced upon them.

Yes, I really don't care about that. No one likes being told what to do. However, if you want to dwell safely in a civilization, you must abide by the rules of that civilization. If you want to change the rules, all it takes is a sufficient amount of strength or other form of persuasion to change the rules, and that is what the homosexual movement is all about, changing the rules of civil engagement, for better or for worse, that's for you to decide.

dgirl1986 continues

Personal experience speaks to his non existence so I do not fear what will happen with I die.

That is interesting to know. My personal experience has shown me that God definitely does exist. I wonder why I experience God, and you don't. Well, maybe that's a topic for another debate.