[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

First of all your post is off the mark. Alcohol is not off the mark in the Bible. Jesus turned the water into fine wine, and lots of it. And it makes glad the heart of man. Plus it was used as medicine back then.

Now, let's talk about the clobber verses in the OT, particularly in Leviticus 18. Can they be trusted? And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's why we ignore most of the book, except the clobber verses. We hetero's like those verses. But the food verses are ignored by Christians. The Jews still keep them. It's called keeping kosher. But even they don't stone people like Leviticus advises. That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

Hard to have effective fellowship with a Christian who doesn't seem to like or trust God, or believe in much of scripture!

I NEVER said alcohol was the problem and that's certainly a Strawman! But the excess thereof - getting drunk - that is what scripture talks about, right?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married. Yes, this is a better comparison - thanks!

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine. AMEN

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

Thanks for that Trapped - makes the point I was trying to make much clearer. There's been a lot of dancing around and around this . . .