Bible is clear on homosexuality
our sole guide and rule in all matters pertaining to this life and the next.
It is by this book that we test every doctrine or opinion of man and, no matter how logical or sensible the idea may appear in the eyes of the world, if we cannot prove it from God’s Word then we must reject it as unscriptural. Equally, every doctrine and teaching contained within the pages of the Bible, no matter how much men may hold them up to mockery, ridicule or scorn, we must believe them to be the very word and teaching of God.
It follows that what the Bible teaches we believe and what the Bible condemns we also condemn. As he states in his message that he is a Christian, I am sure that Thomas would agree with me on this fundamental starting point.
Therefore, on the basis of the above, when the Bible states in Leviticus 18 v22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” and again in Leviticus 20 v13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death”, I believe that this is the actual, real word of God declaring homosexuality to be a sin which is grievous and offensive in His sight.
As God has condemned homosexuality in His Word, I also condemn it as an immoral and sinful lifestyle. To my mind, the teaching of these verses is very plain and cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted and I would expect that this view would be shared by everyone who claims to be a Christian. I find it absolutely impossible therefore to understand how Thomas or anyone else professing to be a Christian can seek to use Christianity or the Bible to justify engaging in homosexual practice when the teaching of the whole Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, is so clear in its condemnation of such a wicked lifestyle.
Thomas, however, is right in one aspect, God is a God of love and while he hates the sin of homosexuality He is more than able to forgive the sin and save the sinner.
Richard Ferguson
Dollingstown
The Watchmen 
In Leviticus chapter 19 there are two laws that I think you might have broken. Leviticus 19 v19, “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material”. Leviticus 19 v27 “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard”. Have you broken either of these rules – I know I have. The Bible is a flawed book written by flawed humans with good intention based on their knowledge and custom at that time 3000 years ago.
They are an example of a people who set out to live their lives as best they could with reason and integrity. The fact that it can be interpreted as being intended to be timeless does not change the fact that they were seen as valuable when they were written. I do not think that you should stop shaving your beard just because some ancient Hebrew told you to. Neither do I thing that a christian ought to be ashamed of his sexuality just because of the attitudes of ancient Hebrews.
By: Tristan Taylor on June 20, 2008
at 2:17 pm
Tristan,
God breated to many people over thousands of years, The Holy Bible “purified seven times” has withstood much twisting,mocking and worn out many attacks on it’s Anvil of Truth
But only with The Gidance of The Holy Spirit can this great Truth be fully realised
We pray that it may be so.
We pray that it may be so.
By: the watchmen on June 20, 2008
at 8:59 pm
Tristan, you confuse things a good deal.
As a Christian, we follow the New Testament, not he Old. THe Law of Moses was nailed to The Cross, completed on Jesus Christ our Lord.
Thats why we can wear fabrics of different blends.
If you read the New Testament you’d know this much.
You’d also know that the moral laws of he Old wheren’t overtuned, only The Ceremonial law, and the reaosn for not wearing blended fabric was to show purity, soemthing no longer needed since the Gentiles and Jews are now one.
On the other hand, Homosexuality is condemned as unnatural and unhealthy, and the condemnaiton is repeaed in The New Testament.
Its not that the Bible is a flawed book written by flawed humans. It was written to address a specific period, and some laws where amended by the final sacrifice of Christ Jesus and the establshment of His Kingdom, but this is hardly the same as what your saying.
By: ZAROVE on June 21, 2008
at 12:48 am
Zarove, you may make a valid point, but it is still said that homosexuality is an abomination, but in the days of the bible this simply meant unclean. You may say that it still states they should be put to death, but it also says that children who disobey their parents should be put to death….we don’t take that literally so why is anyone allowed to pick and choose what to believe? .
By: danny on March 7, 2009
at 5:51 am
Danny, you didn’t read my post, so Ill repeat.
The Moral law that undergirds the Law of Moses was not done away with, only the Ceremonial Law, and soem of the punishments temporally applied.
Not that his matters, since Homosexuality was also condemneed in the New Testament, and the condemnation fo the act is not simply foudn in Leviticus. Pauls letters are equelly part of the Bible.
Your also wrong about the Old Testament.
Homosexuality was not simply “Unclean” or it would have been referred to as “Unclean”, not “An Abomination”.
From Strong’s Concordance.
Tow`ebah (to-ay-baw’); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 8441
a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
This is the word “Abomination”.
Unclean is below.
Niddah (nid-daw’); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 5079
impurity, filthiness, menstruous, set apart
impurity
of ceremonial impurity
of menstruation
impure thing (fig.)
of idolatry, immorality
No, Abominaiton doens’t simplymean unclean.
Which still woudln’t matter since Paul still condemned the practice in the New TEstament.
By: Zarove on March 9, 2009
at 3:00 am
Oh, and the whole bit abotu us not taking literlaly Children beign stonesd to death for disobedince is wrong. For oen thing, i do take it literlaly, but I understand hat it says as well.
This wasn’t a situaiton in which an Iritable nine year old refuses to clean his room so is killed, rather, it was about a patriarichal order that was nessisary for survial.
The Disobeidnce in ti case refered to open rebelion agaisnt the head of the household, in definace of his mastery over the clan. It wans’t mild like not doing oens chores, it was major as in refusing to cooperat and do your bit to ensure your peopel survived in a harsh world.
That said, and as I said elsewhere, this is a NEw TEstament Era is it not?
By: Zarove on March 9, 2009
at 7:04 am