Hath God said?

[hermeneutika]

If for the Christian the Bible is the only and exclusive rule of faith. I think maybe the doctrine was called the sufficency of Scripture. If this is the case and the Scripture says

Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Le 20:13 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; their blood [shall be] upon them.

And also

Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And again

1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

And again

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Now i didnt write the Bible. My job is apparently to obey it. But it would seem to me that most Churches will "bless" same sex couples, and not call it a sin. I have yet to find a Church where the women are veiled when they pray. And of course i have yet to find the Church where the females submit to the men.

So indeed "hath God said" about these things?

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
After all its only the Word of God....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/01/2024 15:14, hermeneutika wrote:

> So indeed "hath God said" about these things?

The passages you quote from Leviticus were commands that had legal force
in the whole community of Israel. That gives them a rather different
status to the messages that Paul wrote, which were not legal commands
and, arguably, only applied to the churches to which he was writing or
the time in which he was writing.

That is why Christians should abominate homosexuality but are free to
disregard or interpret what Paul said about women. Paul's advice should
not be treated lightly, but equally it is not binding in all time and in
all locations.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[John]

On 07/01/2024 15:14, hermeneutika wrote:

> If for the Christian the Bible is the only and exclusive rule of faith. I think maybe the doctrine was called the sufficency of Scripture. If this is the case and the Scripture says
>
> Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
> Le 20:13 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; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Both commands from the Old Testament which Acts 15 says applies to
Christians.

> Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It seesm to be that Paul himself is repulsed by men having sex with each
other, but perhaps Paul had in mind the Leviticus commandment, so
regarded it as a strict no no.

But tell me, are you equally aghast at other sexual sins that take
place, unmarried people having sex, couples living together, children
born out of wedlock, extra marital affairs and divorce etc? These are
far more widespread than Christians having homosexual relations, yet
certain sections of the church constantly harp on about it yet allows
carte blanche the other sins.

> 1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
>
> And again
>
> 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The question is, should it still apply today or was it a cultural thing.
I'm happy to discuss it with you if you want, but two way communication
would be very helpful, as you do tend to fire these occasional bullets
then lie low.

> Now i didnt write the Bible. My job is apparently to obey it. But it would seem to me that most Churches will "bless" same sex couples, and not call it a sin. I have yet to find a Church where the women are veiled when they pray. And of course i have yet to find the Church where the females submit to the men.

I know of two, The Plymouth Brethren (there are two divisions, closed
and open, and it's the closed division who are strict on this, and the
Christadelphian church, although they themselves have become less strict
on it now.

[hermeneutika]

2 peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

If the Pauline epistles are the Word of God then they cannot be thrown out. They must be obeyed as the very Word of God.

[hermeneutika]

I couldnt care less what people do, it is none of my business. I hope i am treated the same. All i am saying is that it seems to me that certain activities are regarded as sin by God. Whereas it seems that some people disagree and that it is their right to break the Word of God.....

[Timreason]

On 08/01/2024 11:37, hermeneutika wrote:

> I couldn't care less what people do, it is none of my business. I hope i am treated the same.

Good point. We don't know the lives of others, and about their journey
with God. It's all too easy to make assumptions or be condemnatory.

As we know, satan likes nothing better than to fuel division.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/01/2024 11:35, hermeneutika wrote:

> If the Pauline epistles are the Word of God then they cannot be thrown out. They must be obeyed as the very Word of God.

They are indeed the word of God - but to whom was that word addressed?

Take the situation in 1 Chron 20, where the word of the Lord ordered the
army to march into battle with a choir in the front rank. Does that mean
that every army for the rest of time must be led by a choir? Or was that
a word given for a specific occasion?

[John]

On 08/01/2024 14:34, Timreason wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 11:37, hermeneutika wrote:
>
>> I couldn't care less what people do, it is none of my business. I hope
>> i am treated the same.
>
> Good point. We don't know the lives of others, and about their journey
> with God. It's all too easy to make assumptions or be condemnatory.

Yet it was Michael who raised the topic! If he couldn't care less why
bother?

> As we know, satan likes nothing better than to fuel division.

As individuals Christians shouldn't judge certainly.(1) As a church
though do you think that sin should be widespread or should the
leadership qell the sin and help the perpretaors to not sin?

(1) I would hope that if a Christian knew the person well enough they
would offer help and guidance, but without condemnation.

[John]

I agree with what you say but how do you decide whch is guidance for a
specific time and which shold be applied today?

Michael may well decide that what the NT writers say about women
preachers and teachers applies today, or head veiling and silence eetc
who's to say he's wrong?

[Timreason]

On 09/01/2024 10:15, John wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 14:34, Timreason wrote:
>> On 08/01/2024 11:37, hermeneutika wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't care less what people do, it is none of my business. I
>>> hope i am treated the same.
>>
>> Good point. We don't know the lives of others, and about their journey
>> with God. It's all too easy to make assumptions or be condemnatory.
>
> Yet it was Michael who raised the topic!  If he couldn't care less why
> bother?

Yes, I wondered that, too.

>> As we know, satan likes nothing better than to fuel division.
>
> As individuals Christians shouldn't judge certainly.(1) As a church
> though do you think that sin should be widespread or should the
> leadership qell the sin and help the perpretaors to not sin?

There is a degree to which we should recognise that we ALL are sinners
and fall short of God's standard. Also, we should not assume sinful
behaviour where there may, in fact, be none; no matter how likely it may
seem that there is.

We should also be aware of the danger of singling out people we suspect
of sins that we would probably not be tempted by ourselves.

Then there are differing beliefs over what actually constitutes a sin.
Of course, ANY sin is unacceptable to God. Stealing a paperclip from
work does break one of the Big Ten. But most of us consider it to be
less of a sin than murder, another of the Big Ten.

Further to that, and has often been discussed in this group, there is
the consideration of whether rules of ALL the Old Testament law apply to
Christians, or just the Big Ten. If we accept that all
six-hundred-and-whatever must apply, then what about all the ones almost
no-one keeps today?

So, as far as I'm concerned, all these issues come into it, and there
are a wide range of differing beliefs on what constitutes sinful
behaviour, what rules apply and what rules from the Old Testament (if
any) can be disregarded.

As a person who believes in the "Inclusive Church", I would say we must
recognise that people are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, even
if we disagree with their POV on some of these issues, and therefore we
should continue to offer them acceptance in fellowship.

To me, that's how I see it, that it is problematic in these (what might
be called) 'conservative' VS 'liberal' arguments, when either side seeks
to oust the other, rather than find ways to cooperate in fellowship
despite disagreement. (I used to think, wouldn't it be great if the
'conservatives' just left - which is how many of them feel about the
liberals, of course. But I've come to understand we are stronger
together, if we can find a way to get along together. Divide and conquer
seems to be satan's plan.)

With regard to your final comment about offering guidance, certainly I
would sometimes suggest that something might be a problem, and suggest
that the person might prayerfully consider whether they are going
contrary to God's will in their life. But at the end of the day it is
THEIR walk with God, not mine. What they decide remains a matter for
their own conscience and may be different to my own view. But the
important thing is that they remain fully accepted and welcome as a
brother or sister in Christ.

Tim.

[John]

On 09/01/2024 17:55, Timreason wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 10:15, John wrote:

> There is a degree to which we should recognise that we ALL are sinners
> and fall short of God's standard. Also, we should not assume sinful
> behaviour where there may, in fact, be none; no matter how likely it may
> seem that there is.

> We should also be aware of the danger of singling out people we suspect
> of sins that we would probably not be tempted by ourselves.

Yes definitely. but if sin is taking place and the church leaders are
aware, should they allow that sin to continue? eg Mr Jones has been
having it away with Mrs Smith and they are caught in an embarrassing
situation, what should the church leaders do?

>
> Then there are differing beliefs over what actually constitutes a sin.
> Of course, ANY sin is unacceptable to God. Stealing a paperclip from
> work does break one of the Big Ten. But most of us consider it to be
> less of a sin than murder, another of the Big Ten.

I was taught that no sin is greater or less in God's eyes. We know
there is (a) sin that leads to death but all others are forgivable if
repented of. Red paint spoils white paint whether it's a little drop or
the whole tin, but God can make the paint white again.

> Further to that, and has often been discussed in this group, there is
> the consideration of whether rules of ALL the Old Testament law apply to
> Christians, or just the Big Ten. If we accept that all
> six-hundred-and-whatever must apply, then what about all the ones almost
> no-one keeps today?

Acts 15 gives a clear enough distinction imo, but really anything that
is displeasing to God. There's also lots of advice in the NT.

> So, as far as I'm concerned, all these issues come into it, and there
> are a wide range of differing beliefs on what constitutes sinful
> behaviour, what rules apply and what rules from the Old Testament (if
> any) can be disregarded.
>
> As a person who believes in the "Inclusive Church", I would say we must
> recognise that people are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, even
> if we disagree with their POV on some of these issues, and therefore we
> should continue to offer them acceptance in fellowship.

So if Mr Jones and Mrs Smith are unrepentant and want to continue their
laison, should the church continue to offer them acceptance of fellowship?

>
> To me, that's how I see it, that it is problematic in these (what might
> be called) 'conservative' VS 'liberal' arguments, when either side seeks
> to oust the other, rather than find ways to cooperate in fellowship
> despite disagreement. (I used to think, wouldn't it be great if the
> 'conservatives' just left - which is how many of them feel about the
> liberals, of course. But I've come to understand we are stronger
> together, if we can find a way to get along together. Divide and conquer
> seems to be satan's plan.)



> With regard to your final comment about offering guidance, certainly I
> would sometimes suggest that something might be a problem, and suggest
> that the person might prayerfully consider whether they are going
> contrary to God's will in their life. But at the end of the day it is
> THEIR walk with God, not mine. What they decide remains a matter for
> their own conscience and may be different to my own view. But the
> important thing is that they remain fully accepted and welcome as a
> brother or sister in Christ.

I had in mind Galations 6:1. If the person is repentant that would be
great, but lets say you are a very good friend of Mr Jones and it was
you who was aware that they were a lot more than just friendly towards
each other, and you have a friendly word.
How would you deal with him if he remained unrepentant?

[Timreason]

On 09/01/2024 18:41, John wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 17:55, Timreason wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 10:15, John wrote:
>
>> There is a degree to which we should recognise that we ALL are sinners
>> and fall short of God's standard. Also, we should not assume sinful
>> behaviour where there may, in fact, be none; no matter how likely it
>> may seem that there is.
>
>> We should also be aware of the danger of singling out people we
>> suspect of sins that we would probably not be tempted by ourselves.
>
> Yes definitely. but if sin is taking place and the church leaders are
> aware, should they allow that sin to continue?  eg Mr Jones has been
> having it away with Mrs Smith and they are caught in an embarrassing
> situation, what should the church leaders do?

It would be unusual for them to be actually caught in the act of
adultery. I suppose there's a whole lot of other considerations that
might be relevant. What about Mrs Jones, what about Mr Smith?

Certainly it's something that would need to be resolved. The Bible gives
some guidance as to how churches should handle such matters - but my
point is that every case is different, and pushing people away from
fellowship also pushes them away from help and support. Perhaps it would
be best to at least look for some way forward to sort out the mess.

>>
>> Then there are differing beliefs over what actually constitutes a sin.
>> Of course, ANY sin is unacceptable to God. Stealing a paperclip from
>> work does break one of the Big Ten. But most of us consider it to be
>> less of a sin than murder, another of the Big Ten.
>
> I was taught that no sin is greater or less in God's eyes.  We know
> there is (a) sin that leads to death but all others are forgivable if
> repented of.  Red paint spoils white paint whether it's a little drop or
> the whole tin, but God can make the paint white again.

Which is why I presented the rather silly idea of nicking a paperclip,
alongside murder. Certainly, from our intuition some sins are worse than
others. Also, not all sins can be put right. Another paper clip could
replace the stolen one, but bringing someone back to life is a bit more
difficult.

The main thing is, we all sin, sometimes through ignorance, sometimes
deliberately, and traditional liturgies of confession and repentance
take these things into account. So, even if a person sins because they
do not believe what they did is a sin, they have still asked for
forgiveness. Repentance means genuinely not intending to repeat a sin -
but if they do not recognise their own sin then the Holy Spirit will (I
believe) lead them to awareness of it, but it may take some time.

>
>> Further to that, and has often been discussed in this group, there is
>> the consideration of whether rules of ALL the Old Testament law apply
>> to Christians, or just the Big Ten. If we accept that all
>> six-hundred-and-whatever must apply, then what about all the ones
>> almost no-one keeps today?
>
> Acts 15 gives a clear enough distinction imo, but really anything that
> is displeasing to God.  There's also lots of advice in the NT.

To me, as we are under the New Covenant, we are always to be mindful of
the two central commands: To love God and to Love our neighbour. We will
please God if we keep these commands - and logically, the worst thing we
can do is to fail to love, be it God or neighbour.

>
>
>> So, as far as I'm concerned, all these issues come into it, and there
>> are a wide range of differing beliefs on what constitutes sinful
>> behaviour, what rules apply and what rules from the Old Testament (if
>> any) can be disregarded.
>>
>> As a person who believes in the "Inclusive Church", I would say we
>> must recognise that people are still our brothers and sisters in
>> Christ, even if we disagree with their POV on some of these issues,
>> and therefore we should continue to offer them acceptance in fellowship.
>
> So if Mr Jones and Mrs Smith are unrepentant and want to continue their
> laison, should the church continue to offer them acceptance of fellowship?

I don't know. Should it be a binary? Either 'In' or 'Out'? Personally, I
see a danger in pushing people away from fellowship, as that may also be
pushing them away from God, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for
doing that. Maybe there's a half-way, perhaps welcoming them to prayer
meetings, but not Holy Communion? I say, I don't know. But fortunately
it's not a decision I would have to make.

>
> I had in mind Galations 6:1.  If the person is repentant that would be
> great, but lets say you are a very good friend of Mr Jones and it was
> you who was aware that they were a lot more than just friendly towards
> each other, and you have a friendly word.
> How would you deal with him if he remained unrepentant?
>

I would certainly offer to pray with him and for him. But of course, as
I said, in real life every case is different and complex. I suppose one
would need to help search for a way forward to resolve the mess.

Tim.

[John]

I'm reminded of when I was a new Christian. I was engaged so naturally
we did what couples do. My fiancee missed a period at the normal time,
and due to an accident with a condom, we thought she might be pregnant.
She was telling our Christian friends about it, and the husband piped up
that we shouldn't be having sex until we were married, as it was sinful.

My bible said sexual immorality, and as we were engaged, deemed it ok. I
had a couple of bibles and one day the other one fell open at the words
"avoid fornication". Fornication is sex outside marriage so I took the
hint and refrained, well apart from once.

So yes, I do believe in the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

>>> Further to that, and has often been discussed in this group, there is
>>> the consideration of whether rules of ALL the Old Testament law apply
>>> to Christians, or just the Big Ten. If we accept that all
>>> six-hundred-and-whatever must apply, then what about all the ones
>>> almost no-one keeps today?
>>
>> Acts 15 gives a clear enough distinction imo, but really anything that
>> is displeasing to God.  There's also lots of advice in the NT.
>
> To me, as we are under the New Covenant, we are always to be mindful of
> the two central commands: To love God and to Love our neighbour. We will
> please God if we keep these commands - and logically, the worst thing we
> can do is to fail to love, be it God or neighbour.

Rest snipped, thank you for your thoughts.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 10:21, John wrote:

> I agree with what you say but how do you decide whch is guidance for a
> specific time and which shold be applied today?

There's the rub, as they say. Look at the context - was it addressed to
the whole body of Christian believers or just to one particular group?
Look at the tradition - did Israel's armies always go out with choirs
leading the way? Look at the fruit of disobeying - are churches where
women participate stronger or weaker?

> Michael may well decide that what the NT writers say about women
> preachers and teachers applies today, or head veiling and silence eetc
> who's to say he's wrong?

If he decides that, fine; let him find a church which agrees with him
and worship there happily ever after - but given that the matter is
debatable, let him not criticise those who reach a different conclusion.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 10:15, John wrote:

> As individuals Christians shouldn't judge certainly.(1) As a church
> though do you think that sin should be widespread or should the
> leadership qell the sin and help the perpretaors to not sin?

Certainly a church and its leaders should seek to quell sin. There are
two steps: the first is to preach truth and high principles; the second
is to apply sanctions to those who transgress. I fear that too many
churches and leaders fall down in both areas: they fail to preach high
standards and then they come down hard on some transgressors but not
all, or do so without mercy.

Take divorce, for example. When did you last hear a sermon on the subject?

But when someone got divorced, did the church institute a kangaroo court
to determine which was the "guilty party" and which the "innocent" who
could be allowed to remarry? Was there a process offered by which even
the guilty could be reinstated upon confession and repentance?

I could tell you a few horror stories, but as the individuals are still
alive and the circumstances sufficiently unique to allow identification,
I forebear.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 17:55, Timreason wrote:

> With regard to your final comment about offering guidance, certainly I
> would sometimes suggest that something might be a problem, and suggest
> that the person might prayerfully consider whether they are going
> contrary to God's will in their life. But at the end of the day it is
> THEIR walk with God, not mine. What they decide remains a matter for
> their own conscience and may be different to my own view. But the
> important thing is that they remain fully accepted and welcome as a
> brother or sister in Christ.

I am not convinced that is either the best or the right course. The
result is a church whose witness is diluted or even nullified by an
appearance of division, of tolerating evil (or tolerating prejudice),
and of having no clear teaching.

Will people be attracted to such a wishy-washy church?

It would, I think, be better to separate and the conservatives can
uphold the principles they believe important while the liberals welcome
the barely Christian.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 18:41, John wrote:

> So if Mr Jones and Mrs Smith are unrepentant and want to continue their
> laison, should the church continue to offer them acceptance of fellowship?

That would seem to be the natural result of the sort of church Tim
champions.

I know that people say that the church is a hospital for sinners, not a
sanctuary for saints, but surely the point of a hospital is that it
cures people, not maintains them in their illness?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/01/2024 19:33, Timreason wrote:

> To me, as we are under the New Covenant, we are always to be mindful of
> the two central commands: To love God and to Love our neighbour. We will
> please God if we keep these commands - and logically, the worst thing we
> can do is to fail to love, be it God or neighbour.

But it is not loving to smile benignly on your neighbour and tell him
that all is well, when in fact he is coming under the condemnation of
God. St Paul remarks scathingly about those who "heap to themselves
teachers having itchy ears" - but it is not the teachers whose ears need
scratching!

> I don't know. Should it be a binary? Either 'In' or 'Out'? Personally, I
> see a danger in pushing people away from fellowship, as that may also be
> pushing them away from God, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for
> doing that.

St Paul speaks of delivering an offender to Satan, so clearly he was
comfortable with pushing people away from fellowship.

> I would certainly offer to pray with him and for him. But of course, as
> I said, in real life every case is different and complex. I suppose one
> would need to help search for a way forward to resolve the mess.

That every case is different, I completely agree - and yet there is a
point of view in which every case is the same. Dress it how you like,
adultery is still adultery with lust at the bottom.

[John]

Thanks Ken, A friend of my wife, who attended a sister church to ours,
was expelled (along with her boyfriend) when she got pregnant. I was
inwardly quite indignant, thinking the horse had already bolted, but I
don't know whether the couple were repentant or not. If not, then being
expelled, was properly the right option.

[John]

On 10/01/2024 08:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 10:21, John wrote:
>
>> I agree with what you say but how do you decide whch is guidance for a
>> specific time and which shold be applied today?
>
> There's the rub, as they say. Look at the context - was it addressed to
> the whole body of Christian believers or just to one particular group?
> Look at the tradition - did Israel's armies always go out with choirs
> leading the way? Look at the fruit of disobeying - are churches where
> women participate stronger or weaker?

Thanks Ken, I've never agreed with Paul's silence of women and had many
conversations with an ex member of this parish about it, this is an
excellent way of looking at it.

>> Michael may well decide that what the NT writers say about women

>> preachers and teachers applies today, or head veiling and silence etc

>> who's to say he's wrong?
>
> If he decides that, fine; let him find a church which agrees with him
> and worship there happily ever after - but given that the matter is
> debatable, let him not criticise those who reach a different conclusion.

It will be interesting to see how he gets on with the book he's reading.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 11:56, John wrote:

> It will be interesting to see how he gets on with the book he's reading.

It will indeed.

I think I have mentioned before that in my opinion women (generalising)
are rotten preachers[1], their necessary and commendable commitment to
their children must inevitably get in the way of ministerial duties, and
if unmarried, they may make even more of a hash of romance than a man would.

However Scripture seems clear to me that in Christ there is neither
"male nor female", so it seems impossible for me to deny that God may
indeed call some women to the ministry. I suspect, however, that as with
men, there are some who enter the ministry without a call and for
entirely wrong reasons.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: Yet strangely many women in the congregation have been
enthusiastic about sermons preached by women which left me cold.
Perhaps, then, women are most effective when ministering to women and
men when ministering to men. One lot being from Mars and the others from
Venus.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/01/2024 11:42, John wrote:

> Thanks Ken, A friend of my wife, who attended a sister church to ours,
> was expelled (along with her boyfriend) when she got pregnant. I was
> inwardly quite indignant, thinking the horse had already bolted, but I
> don't know whether the couple were repentant or not.  If not, then being
> expelled, was properly the right option.

A difficult one. Ideally, of course, the ceremony should precede the
pregnancy, but there is an argument that intercourse is de facto
marriage and so long as the couple recognise and accept that fact (and
make it official as soon as possible) there is no need for extreme measures.

[John]

On 10/01/2024 20:20, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> However Scripture seems clear to me that in Christ there is neither
> "male nor female", so it seems impossible for me to deny that God may
> indeed call some women to the ministry. I suspect, however, that as with
> men, there are some who enter the ministry without a call and for
> entirely wrong reasons.

Well I have to confess that all the preachers I've seen/heard are men,
so I can't really comment on their ability.

The one time I attended a church that had a lady vicar was when my
friend's had their vows renewed on their 40th wedding anniversary.

A nice service, the vicar did her job well, but there wasn't a sermon (I
wouldn't have expected there to be)

[hermeneutika]

On Mon Jan 8 10:07:27 2024 John wrote:

> On 07/01/2024 15:14, hermeneutika wrote:
> > If for the Christian the Bible is the only and exclusive rule of faith. I think maybe the doctrine was called the sufficency of Scripture. If this is the case and the Scripture says
> >
> > Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
> > Le 20:13 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; their blood [shall be] upon them.
>
> Both commands from the Old Testament which Acts 15 says applies to
> Christians.
>
>
> > Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
>
> It seesm to be that Paul himself is repulsed by men having sex with each
> other, but perhaps Paul had in mind the Leviticus commandment, so
> regarded it as a strict no no.
>
> But tell me, are you equally aghast at other sexual sins that take
> place, unmarried people having sex, couples living together, children
> born out of wedlock, extra marital affairs and divorce etc? These are
> far more widespread than Christians having homosexual relations, yet
> certain sections of the church constantly harp on about it yet allows
> carte blanche the other sins.
>
>
>
> > 1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
> >
> > And again
> >
> > 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
>
> The question is, should it still apply today or was it a cultural thing.
> I'm happy to discuss it with you if you want, but two way communication
> would be very helpful, as you do tend to fire these occasional bullets
> then lie low.

i am sorry about not following up on some of my posts. For me the issue is the Word of God. For me currently it is not a cultural issue ie it was only for the Corinthian Church but not universal.