

There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results
of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual.  I saw another
figure that listed 2% as the figure.  Of course, even if it were 99%
that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior.
How many people have commited other acts of fornication?  How many
people have lied or sinned in other ways?


Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality?  Paul describes
"men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.  
Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other
sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins
sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of 
man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful.  Still, their
acts were shameless.


Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament?
Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer.  Being ruled by the
Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also
protects us from sins that are against the Spirit.  The word is a
two edged sword that cuts both ways.  

I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.  
If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.  
If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome, 
endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded
biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of
it in Leviticus.  This condemnation is in the midst of all the other
sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this
law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that
this was the case.  Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty
crime!  

Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament?  Take a look at
I Corinthians 5.  Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a
law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.  There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in 
Leviticus.  No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides
this one.)  Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting
adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.  

Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned
in the specific context of paganism either.  And there was no pagan 
coustom mentioned in I corinthians either.  As a matter of fact
taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles.  It was
just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or
not.


One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
is because Paul probably did face this and other problems.  Sin can
be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power.  Is
homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin,
like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of
the opposite sex?  I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse.
God is greater than all of it. 

Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural
power of God to intervene in this kind of situation.  How many 
people have been set free from sin by the power of God?  Sure there
may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed.
That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not
God's willingness and ability to change a sinner.  Any program that
uses formulas may fail.  What people need is the power of God to
change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other
sin.


I don't see how you come to that conclusion.  Paul's dealings with
pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order
to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it
was just too difficult.  Take the example of eating meat offered to idols.
Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with
eating the meat.  Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty
to eat meat in order to spare others.  

But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to
tough.  Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof."  (Romans 13:14)  Then he goes in to a discourse on how we
should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.

Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.  
Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach
on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should 
sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a
member of the opposite sex.  Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual
"marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered 
a more damaging sin.


Yet marriage itself is not a sin.  marriage is holy in all- and something
that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.


Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell.
After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.


That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious
position to be it.  We all must be transformed by the renewing of our
minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just
like anyone else.


I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this 
conclusion.  It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or
aresenic?  What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to
sleep with goats?  Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat,
or all of them?  What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts?
Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?  

In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher
the chance that they will get a disease.  But this only deals with 
physical aspects of the question.  Whichever sin is commited, it all 
leads to spiritual death.


The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the
actual act.  Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that
only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving
relationships?"  There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love."
(btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes.  Also,
where do you get that tax collectors are sinners.  That's certainly not
explicit.  Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)

Link Hudson.
