Homosexuality and The Old Testament. How to defend the faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nickos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So to help you out, I’ll give you an example. Consider Israel’s war with Amalek:
Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi: For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. – Exodus 17:8-16
Click to expand...
It’s tempting to think it’s an actual, physical war, but Moses does not hang us completely out to dry. He gives us the clue in the last verse. This is not an event that happened once (or possibly ever) in history. This is an eternal war between God and Amalek.

Once we get that much, we can go back and meditate on the story in the light of this new understanding to see what the details of this parable have to teach us about the nature of this eternal war, and how to win it.

(Part 2 of 2)
 
Last edited:
I was using it in the correct way. And for the record most gay people I know engage in dangerous and unloving acts. Male and female. Gay people are as sexual in nature as anyone else.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
I was using it in the correct way. And for the record most gay people I know engage in dangerous and unloving acts. Male and female. Gay people are as sexual in nature as anyone else.
Click to expand...
Dangerous sex is a different matter entirely. It’s equally relevant to all of us. So an argument that says it’s wrong applies to all. There’s no need to differentiate between gay and heterosexual sex. A heterosexual person having multiple partners without protection is at risk. More so than a gay couple who have been faithful to each other for many years. That argument is therefore rejected.

And as for classing it as unloving, that is not for you to decide. Physical intimacy can be loving or it can be simply a source of sexual release. It can be between partners who are sharing a life together or two people who have met for just a one night stand. It can be between a married couple who use it to form a physical and emotional bond to bring themselves closer together or it can be two teenagers fumbling in the back of a pick up.

Whether there is love involved or not is not for you to decide. That is between the couple themselves. I doubt if anyone having sex cares one way or the other what you or anyone else might think. I’d say that they might suggest that it’s literally nothing whatsoever to do with you. So that argument is also rejected.
 
If your position is that homosexual sex is or could be, an expression of love born of God ;which is what love is) then we cannot continue the conversation.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
If your position is that homosexual sex is or could be, an expression of love born of God ;which is what love is) then we cannot continue the conversation.
Click to expand...
I’m an atheist. But then again, if you are suggesting that physical love between myself and my partner is devoid of love then we have an argument brewing.
 
I thought that my post would help open your mind to the depth of understanding within the Scripture about this. I wasn’t trying to give you the answer as much as give you information and a perspective in order for you to develop an answer yourself.

If you asked me, I think, if you want an apology of the death penalty for homosexuals, you might want to consider what the purpose of the death penalty in general was in Mosaic law.

And in that case, I just so happen to have a post I wrote on reddit outlining how I understand Mosaic laws to be something that is both abolished while also being fulfilled in Christ:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/gejfno/serious_question_weird_laws_in_the_bible_and_moses
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Mmm. Right and wrong were relative to the times, eh?
Click to expand...
Jewish people lived under Jewish law, that is what the books of Torah are about in the Old Testament.

When Jesus came He rescinded some of these laws. One example is the law of eating only Kosher foods if you are not Jewish. Jesus specifically tells St Peter all foods are clean and now can be eaten.
Circumcision is another example. St Peter and St Paul had a bit of an argument about whether Christians should be circumcised or not. It was decided Christians did not require it.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
Freddy:
Mmm. Right and wrong were relative to the times, eh?
Click to expand...
Jewish people lived under Jewish law, that is what the books of Torah are about in the Old Testament.

When Jesus came He rescinded some of these laws. One example is the law of eating only Kosher foods if you are not Jewish. Jesus specifically tells St Peter all foods are clean and now can be eaten.
Circumcision is another example. St Peter and St Paul had a bit of an argument about whether Christians should be circumcised or not. It was decided Christians did not require it.
Click to expand...
We’re talking ot here. Anything else you could point out that was morally acceptable in the ot and is not now? You’ll have plenty from which to choose.
 
I would like for people here to stick to the op. The answers here have gone out of topic. Im not debating if homosexuality is a sin or not or anything of that. Im speaking of these specific things which are listed above. Thabks
 
Nickos said:
Sure abomination its one thing but killing them isnt going too far?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is going to far.

But look at all the innocents that God killed during the Great Flood.
God killed innocent children that had done no wrong.
God killed the unborn in the wombs of women that had done no wrong.

And that is for starters.

I myself will not give a defense for the senseless murdering in the Old Testament.
 
Freddy said:
We’re talking ot here. Anything else you could point out that was morally acceptable in the ot and is not now? You’ll have plenty from which to choose.
Click to expand...
What do you have in mind? It seems you know some yourself given your
Freddy said:
You’ll have plenty from which to choose.
Click to expand...
And which angle would you like to discuss this from?
 
If the parents were deserving that then how would children be left alone to live? They didnt deserve to suffer.
 
Plus i dont know children coming to my house with adults demanding they rape my guests seems not so innocent to me
 
Read Leviticus . It states both old and young gathered around the house. So some kf these children were not so innocent
 
Forget about the church. How do you explain the death penalty and the verses where Paul states it is a sin? Id love to hear your opinion as you posted some good arguments in the previous one. I do agree that we are overpreaching the sinful acts of homosexuals for example but we ignore the heterosexual ones.
 
OurLadyofSorrows said:
40.png
Freddy:
Plenty in Leviticus.
Click to expand...
You are being quite cryptic, the op has requested we dont go off topic so its better for a new thread.
Click to expand...
Come now. The punishment for homosexuality in the OT was death. As was the punishment for many other acts. It was suggested that ‘times have changed’ and we view things with a more contemporary view of morality. That’s not really a debatabke point I would suggest.

I mentioned that upstream because I am constantly told in this forum that morality isn’t relative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top