Question for Christians?

Question

A few moments ago I posted a question asking if Christians still followed the Old Testament because I am under the impression that Jesus brought about a new law which in a sense made the Old Testament invalid.

I am told that Christians must still follow the Ten Commandments however the laws set forth are no longer valid and were only meant for Israel in the first place.

Leviticus is in the Old Testament. Many laws in Leviticus are no longer applicable such as food preparation. It stands to reason that the laws about homosexuality are no longer invalid as well.

It seems that many Christians pick and choose which part of the Old Testament they do and do not wish to follow. I would like to know how you know which parts you are supposed to follow and which parts are inapplicable. How do you know that the food preparation laws are not applicable but homosexuality laws are applicable?

Please explain your reasoning. Thank you.

Edit: It stands to reason that the laws about Homosexuality are no longer *valid as well.

Georgia B I would love to read the essay - post away!

Answer 1

You're onto something that they can't answer. However, I copied a wonderful essay that someone on here wrote, giving scripture after scripture of how Christianity supports homsexuality. I can post it if you want. I don't do email on here. It's pretty long but definitely worth the read.

P.S. I'm enjoying reading the hypocritical answers so far (..."what makes sense, where it's feasible..."). Hee hee.

edit~ O.k., here goes. I wish I could give credit to the person who wrote it, here on Y!A.

The Bible
In our Judeo-Christian society, the documents collectively known as the Bible serve as the primary guide on most issues. It is interesting that many Christians take literally the references to homosexual acts, while interpreting other text with great flexibility. One person reported listening to a nationally-known woman speak in her campaign against homosexuality. She spent quite a bit of time quoting impressively from Leviticus. The listener accepted much of what the speaker said until he realized that, by Levitical standards, the crusader herself had broken many biblical laws – she spoke in church (1 Corinthians 14:34), she taught men (1 Timothy 2:12), she was wearing a dress made of cotton and polyester (Deuteronomy 22:11), and others of which he was probably unaware.

What does the Bible really say about homosexuality? Actually, very little. Most significantly, Jesus said nothing at all. Considering the relatively small amount of attention the Bible pays to the subject, we must ask ourselves why this is such a volatile issue. Other subjects about which the scriptures say a great deal (e.g. judgment, pride, hypocrisy) receive much less passionate attention. Before looking at specific passages, it is important to note that everyone understands the scriptures based on, and through, the light of what they have been taught. The Bible was not written in a cultural void, and many of its instructions and laws are simply classified as less relevant today (e.g. prohibition against eating pork).

Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.

The Sodom Story
A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city “both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception” and demanded that the visitors be brought out “so that we might know them.” (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.

There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were “the sin of Sodom.” (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.

It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin.
Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.

Homosexual Acts
Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts: Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code, which is not kept by any Christian group. If it was enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant. For example, fundamentalist author Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful, and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, “Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants and other improved means of sanitation had been invented.” (The Act of Marriage, p.275) With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones of his arguments. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children, which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews, is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shellfish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, yet it does have several beautiful examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. (2 Samuel 1:26) Ruth's relationship with Naomi is an example of a deep, bonding love, and Ruth’s words of covenant to Naomi are often used in heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (Ruth 1:16-17) The Bible clearly values love between persons of the same sex.

Jesus' Attitude
In the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike us as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is. Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.

Episcopal priest Dr. Tom Horner has written that the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. (Jonathan Loved David, p. 122) The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. (Matthew 8:5-13) The word used for the servant is “pais,” which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older, more powerful or educated man. Clearly, the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive.

The other hint of Jesus' attitude is seen in his comments about eunuchs. (Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said “some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake.” Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being “born eunuchs” are the people we call lesbian or gay.

Jesus' attitude toward eunuchs differed greatly from the fundamentalist Pharisees of his day. To them, eunuchs should have been excluded from the covenant and barred from worship and participating in the community of faith. Jesus' graceful approach to eunuchs is beautifully pictured in the promise of the prophecy of Isaiah, “To the eunuchs...I will give them an everlasting name that will not be taken away.” (56:4-8)

In Jesus' day there were three types of persons called eunuchs: celibates, those who were slaves and were castrated so that children would not be born to them, and those who were “born eunuchs,” or homosexuals. Royal and wealthy households used castrated slaves to work with and guard the concubines and female slaves. However, when assigning slaves to female members of the royal family, they would choose homosexual slaves. With female members, the concern was not just unwanted pregnancies but also rape.

It is against this background that we must read the story found in Acts 8:26-40. In this passage, the Holy Spirit sends Philip the Deacon to witness to and baptize an Ethiopian eunuch of Queen Candace of Ethiopia. One of the earliest converts to Christianity was a person excluded for sexual reasons from the Old Testament community.

Paul's References
Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-32 has been taken as the strongest New Testament rejection of homosexuality. He is concerned about the influence of the pagan culture on the Roman Christians. After giving a detailed description of a world that “exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator,” he continues, “Therefore, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lusts for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty of their perversion.”

A complete reading of these passages, in their original context, clearly shows that what Paul was actually referring to was homosexual temple prostitution, which was performed by various cults (though far more cults used heterosexual prostitution). Again, Paul is not referring to same-sex love, and he clearly has no concept of persons for whom this lifestyle is “natural.”

Paul's other reference to homosexual acts in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is similar to 1 Timothy 1:8-11. These two passages contain lists of persons to be excluded from the Realm of God. The interpretation of these passages depends on two Greek words that have always presented a problem for translators. In the King James Version, they are translated “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” In the Revised Standard Version, they were combined and rendered as “homosexuals,” however, these are not the Greek words for homosexual, so these translations reflects the scholars' bias. The New International Version illustrates the difference in these two words by translating them “male prostitute” and “homosexual offenders.” The Jerusalem Bible uses the terms “catamites and “sodomites.” Catamites were youth kept especially for sexual purpose, who were usually paid large sums of money. Neither passage refers to persons of same-sex orientation but to people who used their sexuality for personal gain.

The Love of Christ
Jesus did a great deal to change many social customs and ideas. He elevated the position of women, and, ultimately, they were his best and most faithful disciples. He did this by example and by commandments that were absolutely inclusive of the rights of all people. Yet, in the name of the Christ whose love encompassed all, the Church has been the most homophobic of all institutions. This should not be surprising when we realize that the Church is still the largest institution which is primarily racially segregated.

The final, and central, message of the New Testament is that ALL persons are loved by God so much that God's Son was sent as a means of redemption from a disease by which we are all afflicted. The cure for this disease cannot be found in any set of actions. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is redemptive. God's love through Christ was given to all people.

The Theological Reflection
For the Christian, sin must be understood as a disease that results FROM a broken relationship with God and that results IN a broken relationship with one another and with ourselves. Hence, Jesus' supreme command is to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Christianity is not a religion with new rules and laws but rather is a new relationship with God. Those things that the legalists are fond of labeling “sins” are actually just symptoms of the much deeper disease of alienation and estrangement. Much of the energy of the Church has been spent dealing with symptoms while leaving the disease intact. Jesus did not seem overly concerned about the legal transgressions of those to whom he ministered. Rather, he was much more concerned with healing the physical, spiritual, emotional and relational brokenness of people. Perhaps if the Church would again give itself to the healing/reconciling ministry of Jesus, then some of the symptoms about which we are so concerned would begin to disappear.

That brings us to the question: Is homosexuality a symptom of brokenness? In a very few cases, perhaps. Yet, pointing fingers of blame and accusation is not Christ's way. Rather, Jesus accepted people as they were and allowed love and acceptance to work its miracle. However, most lesbians and gays have been lesbian or gay for as long as they can remember. For them, it is a much a natural characteristic as their eye color or their handedness. Kinsey Institute research (University of Indiana, 1981) has suggested that homosexuality may well be genetic or, at least, linked to some prenatal factors. (Sexual Preference, Bell &Weinberg) Certainly most competent psychologists would concur that sexual orientation is set prior to the age of five in most persons. It is, therefore, not a matter of choice, so it cannot be a moral or ethical issue.

Many Christians insist that God can change/cure the homosexual. In the book The Third Sex there are six reported cases of homosexuals whom God has “cured.” Of these six, at least four are known to have returned to their gay lifestyle. (Christianity Today, February 1981) Many lesbians and gays spend most of their lives trying, with no success, to persuade God to change them. It is like trying to get God to change your eye color. What option, then, is left to these persons? They have been told that they can't be gay and Christian. Since all efforts have failed in their struggle not to be gay or lesbian, then their only recourse, according to the Church, is that they can't be Christian. So, the Church has discounted or discarded as much as 10% of the population.

If they are excluded from the life of the Christian community, who, then, will tell them of God's inclusive love and of Jesus' reconciling death? Are they left to assume that God is so narrow-minded as to exclude them for something over which they have no control and for a choice they did not make? When will the Church finally be brave enough to say with Paul, “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female,” gay or straight? God has enough love for all!
Source(s):
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Matthew 7:1

(Author Unknown)

Answer 2

Here is the reason.
Jesus came to fulfilled the law "the law of Moses". not to abandon it.
The law of Moses in the old testament is about preparing the Isreal people for the coming of Jesus Christ.
e.g. offering of first born lamb were no longer needed, since Jesus Christ already fulfilled that blood sacrifice.

If you read in the new testament, there are many areas such as the writings of Paul, who clearly mention homosexuality is a sin.

It is true many so called christians pick and choose, and it is done by their own choices, but that do not invalidate what the scriptures stated. In reference to your point, men by themselves will have different interpretation of scriptures, it is necessary to have someone like a prophet to say what is applicable and what is not .

Answer 3

Yay! A valid question! I hope you don't get deleted!

I was trying to say something like this earlier, but my question seemed to have gotten lost in translation!

I completely agree with you, and I think it's sad. Non-believers will state certain passages from the Old Testament about food prep, stoning, etc. Most Christians then state, those are old. They no longer apply. Etc.

But in ALL of the questions I've seen on here, Leviticus is the ONLY section of their bible that they use to condemn homosexuality. In fact, one person even said something along the lines of, "no, I believe in the New Testament. I also believe the line "man should not lay with mankind like he does a woman." Um, if the other Christians who quoted that were right, THAT IS FROM LEVITICUS!

Also, I'm getting really tired of the "it's the same as any sex without marriage" and "adultery" thing. I don't see people on here condemning people like this even a QUARTER as much as they condemn homosexuals. They speak out more about homosexuals because they are different, and God FORBID they be different than you or I, right?

Not to mention, if the government would get off their bible-thumping high horse for a minute and realize that they should allow gay marriage, then technically, it wouldn't be against the bible? Right? Isn't that what they are saying??


I'm so confused!!!! I haven't gotten a straight answer yet! Good luck!!!

Answer 4

You are looking at it all wrong.The laws in the old testament are still,and always will be valid.
The Jews denied Jesus Christ,even after he resurrected.Therefore the Jews stick with the old testament and do not recognize the new testament.That is also why the Koran doesn't recognize Jesus as the risen messiah.
The ten commandments were written for all.Jesus said whosoever.Not a certain people or nation,but all people and all nations.

Answer 5

They are applicable but not in a physical way any more but in a spiritual way. We still give God our sacrifices but they are not dead animals. Washing your hands represents that your deeds are pure, the Noah's Ark story represents how we are saved from the flood of sin that sweeps away the whole world if we're not in the ark which is the new covenant with Christ. Paul said they are not done away with, they are our examples of spiritual things. As far as homosexuality, that is not just in the old testament. It is forbidden in the new testament as well (1 Corinthians 6:9) It says that no murders, theives, etc... or effeminates or homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God. That doesn't mean we hate them. They just have to take their feelings to the Lord in prayer and work it out personally with their God.

Answer 6

The old testament is not invalid, Jesus came was sacrificed for our sins, So we could talk to God through Jesus, because in the old days the only way to talk to God was through appointed priests. Jesus came to modify the laws not to throw them out. You accept Jesus into your heart you are saved or born again, you can then directly talk to God, and you will naturally want to follow the laws because God's Holy Spirit is upon you. the old testament rules were for the Jews because they constantly disobeyed God. These rules were to show them God was sending A Messiah to save them a King to rule over them. They are still waiting for a King, they do not realize he has come already, they killed there own King and denied him. The only way to the Father is through the Son, you forsake the Son and deny him I guess there is no hope, you accept him and the rest will come.

Answer 7

I personally believe that the Old Testament law was given to the Jewish people to set them apart as a nation. Some of the laws are common sense laws, such as foods, food preparation, molds and mildew, etc... Some are criminal and moral laws.
The controversy of, should the Gentiles be subject to the Jewish Law, came up very early in the Church (circumcision, foods, etc...). It was decided by the Elders in the Book of Acts, the 15th chapter, that the new, Gentile believers would not be subjected to the Jewish restrictions. Only a few things they must abstain from,....29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

Paul stated in 1 Corinthians:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jesus said:
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Answer 8

Good question! My hat to you.
Any laws written in OT that CHRISTIANS should still follow are referred to
(at least, alluded to) in NT. Please note Acts 15: 22 - 28.
Circumscision was the issue.
Does it continue as an obligation? Note verse 28.
So, does the Bible repeat anything on gay-ness?
There is always 1 Corinthians 6:9 ....which many don't like to hear.
Lets add Romans 1:27 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
Hey! Straight from the NT!

Answer 9

Funny how if a non-Christian will single out a verse for an example they are told it is out of context and you can't pick and choose from the bible but some Christians do all the picking and choosing they want and claim some isn't valid anymore or it wasn't meant that way.....

Answer 10

I don't really know too much about this. All I can offer is that I know people say the food preparation things were set in place to protect the people. But you're probably right, at least to some extent, that people pick and choose.

Answer 11

Oh man some of these answers are just tooo long.

Bottom line is . . ok Christian logic is Jesus was God and he said things that appear in the Bible,

so you look at like, Matthew 15 and Jesus says its ok to eat things cause what you eat doesn't defile you.

And as for the gay issue, its right in there in Matthew 15 same group of verses in fact, where Jesus says its not the food that defiles you, its immorral acts.

The reality of "jesus" is that the Bible makes him out to be this guy who basically got rid of the stupid stuff from the old testement, but the "ideal marriage" of man plus woman still holds.

I hope that explains it for you. As for me I try and love my wife I don't believe in God and two gay guys or gay women or whatever gots nothing to do with me I hope they find love.