Dirt Stew:

Scripture has a great property of being Logical. God is not the author of confusion & the Scripture - being God-breathed, - makes sense. This being the case, we can reason that: Once a principle is defined, -that it can be used to cross reference places where translation is questionable. 

If all Gronks are green and a Slyth is a subspecies of Gronk then we know that Slyths must be green because all Gronks are green. This is basic logic. So, if a person stumbles upon some ancient text that discusses Slyths and how during a certain holiday, they are eaten (all except the Brulu ones - because the color Brulu means the Slyth is spoiled); --What can we conclude about the color "Brulu"?

  1. That it is green
  2. That it is NOT green
  3. That it is orange

From the information given, the correct answer is (2): Brulu is NOT Green.  We know it's not (3) because we don't have any information about the specific color that Brulu is from the text. And, we know the Brulu is not green because the text is about Slyths and Slyths are a subspecies of Gronk and all Gronks are green. Because we know that a "good Gronk" is green then we know that a good Slyth is green. And, if the color Brulu indicates that the Slyth is spoiled -- then we know Brulu is not green because a good Slyth is green.  Since color is being used to determine if the Slyth is "good', then it would make no sense to presume that Brulu might be green. It is illogical to say that the Brulu Slyth's are spoiled - and good Slyths are green (Brulu).  The Logic checks.

The issue of sexual orientation is actually much easier to justify Scripturally, but the same principles of logic apply.  The logic that can be applied is that which applies to dietary restrictions in the old covenant vs. the new. Paul (& Jesus) used "food" to illustrate matters of faith quite often. This is because the underlying principles build good theology.

Under Hebrew law, a food was UNkosher (against the rules to eat)  if it had come from a restricted animal, - or had been in a process that "defiled it" like being leftover from another animal's kill, died of natural causes, -- or if it had been sacrificed to an "idol".  Certain animals you simply couldn't eat.  Others you could -- unless some thing about their death process made them "unclean". 



Oh, what we know today that they did not know back when Moses wrote the Law! And, it's amazing how that Law lines up with what we now know!

20+ centuries ago, those people had a very rudimentary understanding of these things.  They knew very little about parasites, bacteria or  amoebic-dysentery, etc.  Moses law told what to avoid without explaining the "Why's".  And there are more "Why's" than what I've covered here.  I hope you are beginning to see some wisdom behind those "rules".

OK...So Jesus comes along & the dietary restrictions were no longer binding as "sin"? The covenant of "Grace" changed the way "Sin" was defined.  The "New Man" is a "New Creature", & in statutory law, -who the law binds must be named. Since the New Creature is neither Jew nor Gentile, Free nor Slave, Male & Female (Gal 3:28);  --Moses Law is nullified (relative to the new-man) whenever it names who it binds as one of those things.  I.E: "If any among you, native-born or alien eats any..." or "If any has a male or female slave...", etc.  This is the primary legal-principle for the covenant of Grace.  Grace is ironically, dependant on LAW, -not lawlessness!  For God has established, via Yeshua, a new creature & a new jurisdiction! Unlike wand-waving religions, -God acts systematically, with volition to accomplish things that have very real mechanisms & implications. 

I've really given some thought as to how to explain the differences of the Law of Moses (which regulated behavior based on a legal code), vs. the New Covenant -- based on grace and the commandments of Jesus to love one another.  As it turns out, there are really only (2) commandments/principles in the New Covenant -- but they cover everything!  They are:

Scripture summarizes them like this:  And one of them, a lawyer, questioned Him, testing Him, and saying, Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?
And Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." Deut. 6:5 This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
" Lev. 19:18 On these two commandments all the Law and the Prophets hang." - Matt 22

See, under the covenant of Moses' Law, sin is defined by breaking one of the commandments. Under the Law of Christ, sin is defined by acting apart from a motive of love. The Scripture also says: "Love works no ill toward it's neighbor." - Rom 13  That corollary happens to be one of the primary principles for guiding appropriate Christian behavior in all things. 

The Apostle Paul even stated that "but the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and faith not pretended" - 1Ti 1:5 (Paraphrase: "Perfection consists of acting in love with right motives & a clean conscience; - Real faith.")

And in the Book of the Acts, God gave Peter a vision about speaking to the Gentiles & visiting their homes (something that Jews could not do if they were subject to the penalties of Moses' Law --because Gentiles often had practices that violated the commandments of Moses' Law & being in company with non-Jews would inevitable lead to a Jew transgressing Moses' Commandment/s.)  With the New Covenant established, the statutes of Moses were essentially replaced with the (2) principles of Christ discussed above. In his letter to the Church in Rome, Saul/Paul (the former Jewish lawyer) writes: "

Rom 14:20 Stop tearing down the work of God for the sake of food. All [things] indeed [are] clean, _but_ [they are] evil to the person eating with offense [fig., eating something that cause someone else to sin].

Rom 14:21 [It is] good not to eat meat nor to drink wine nor [to do anything] by which your brother is caused to stumble [fig., to sin] or is made to fall [fig., scandalized] or becomes ill.

Rom 14:22 _You_ have faith? Be having [it] to yourself before God. Happy is the one not judging himself in what he approves [of].

Rom 14:23 But the one doubting, if he eats, has been condemned, because [it is] not of faith. Now all which [is] not of faith is sin."

Here, Paul is laying down some very important principles. In doing so, he makes an amazing statement (for a Jew to make): "ALL INDEED CLEAN". Since the topic was "Food Sacrificed to Idols", we know he's talking about Food/Meat. If you understand the PRINCIPLES clarified in Romans 14, then you'll understand why the Gender-mix of a couple is a non-issue to God.  However, having said that & given you the assignment of studying it, I'm going to explain the whole gender-mix/sexuality thing from a parallel perspective.

"ALL INDEED CLEAN" - Paul, about meats sold in the marketplace for the perspective of whether they were offered to an idol before being sold.  The reason we can draw the conclusion about meat, and about the gender mix of a couple is because: It's all dirt.  Literally.  Every living thing comes from dirt & will eventually become dirt again.  Meat: It's dirt. Pizza: It's dirt. Corn: It's dirt. Lima-beans: It's dirt (as we suspected all along). 

OK...stay with me here: Man: He's dirt. Woman: She's Dirt.

"And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul." - Gen 2:7

The false doctrine that has gained a foothold over the last 800+ years asserts that"God has a real problem if the gender of a couple happens to be the same"; -- & is essentially an argument that is about what meat is kosher & what is not. It's a heresy that asserts that it's Tow'ebah (abomination) for "boy to eat boy or girl to eat girl".  I'm not discussing cannibalism, -but I am speaking in sexual metaphors.  Am I being extreme? Well, consider this:

You don't get any more intimate with something than when you eat it. Consider: It becomes part of you! When you eat the "Pizza", you digest it & it then builds your cells.  It becomes part of you.  You can't get more intimate than that. You can't get any closer to something than to make it a part of you. It is imperative that you understand that principle.

And; -- Food is ultimately dirt, -& so are you.  Are we going to go to battle over piles of "dirt"? Going to battle over dirt is precisely what the "Godly Heterosex" heresy does.  Get it? When you play kissy-face with another person -- on a physical level -- you're exchanging a clump of atoms here & a clump of atoms there. You're getting your "pile of dirt" -- all "dirty with theirs"!  The doctrine of demons that asserts that "gender matters" is ultimately saying that 2 piles of dirt called "MALE" can't mingle; --NOR can 2 piles of dirt called "FEMALE"  mingle. And, if you do mingle two "like piles", it's a HUGE SIN (with the denouncing & the damning & the excommunication, etc)!

In the name of SANITY: It's ALL JUST DIRT!  Does anyone believe that eating pork is more 'kosher' in this New Covenant than tongue wrestling with your paramour? Is eating the lobster less tow'ebah than fellatio?  Hmmm. Lobster - Dirt.  Boy-tongue (etc), - Dirt.

The person who promotes the notion that the gender of your own species is less 'kosher' to be intimate with, - than that of another species is to eat, -- is like a doctor who religiously washes his hands (in the toilet) before operating!  If there was any scandal in the Old Covenant about the gender-mix of a couple (which there really isn't), -- that 'issue' was settled completely when dietary laws were nullified in the New!  See, a few badly translated verses of Scripture (I.E: those that contain the term "sodomite" or "homosexual") can't face the light of the bigger principles without standing out as contrary to sound theology! 

For 800+ years, religious heretics (Islam, Catholicism & virtually every Protestant-derivation) have gotten all bent out of shape about the mix composition of gender -- which ultimately comes down to concerns about mere dirt!  Most of these same people would never question a blood transfusion between 2 men; --But if the same men enjoy mutual fellatio ... it's suddenly a grievous "sin"? Hello! Yes, I'm aware that there are some religions that shun blood transfusions (& there are some real biological caveats regarding blood transfusions); -- but they don't shun them due to gender-intermix issues.  .

In matters of love, God isn't concerned about who's dirt you swap from your pile. It is written: "There is no Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:28  There is a fundamental principle of Law called "compelling interest". That principle establishes that - in order for a legislative body to create a statute regulating something, there must be a COMPELLING INTEREST on the part of the legislature to do so.  And since government is established to protect life, liberty & property, --that must be the nature of the compelling interest.  Imagine that every full moon, dangerous creatures came out & attacked people who were outside & many of these people caught diseases from the attack that they spread to others by mere contact. It would be lawful for a statute to be passed calling for a curfew every full moon -in order to protect the public from a well established threat to life & health.  However, if some 'ruler' decides that he doesn't want people outside during full moons merely because he has some whacky ideas about exposure to moonlight, --any such 'law' is moot because there is no compelling interest that falls within the context of lawful governance.  Now: Saying that God has forbid same-sex pair bonding is actually an accusation against the character of God -- because such a "law" shows no compelling interest as a foundation.  I'll be direct: If it is lawful for a woman & man to pairbond & lawful for the woman to practice fellatio on the man; --Then it must be lawful for 2 men to pairbond & practice fellatio on each other -- because from a physiological perspective -- there is simply no difference.  Any "risk factors" are identical in each scenario.  I'll note that some places have had "anti-fellatio/"sodomy"<sic> laws on the books that have been repeatedly cut down in the courts because the legislature (lawgiver) can't demonstrate a compelling interest to regulate what is generally a private activity.  If the legislature could cite proof that "fellatio causes grievous malady", then the state would have some compelling interest to regulate it.  Scripturally, one of the 1st accusations Satan made was concerning the nature of God -- accusing him of being arbitrary in his law making.  "God has said that you can't eat from ANY of the trees in the garden?!" - Satan (Genesis 3:1) Click here for a deeper analysis.  

If there is NO MALE & FEMALE in Christ, THEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HETEROSEXUALITY!  ("Hetero" means "Dissimilar/Unalike".)  In Christ, it's all 'HOMOSEX' (Has to be - as there is no gender to use as a measuring rod)!
How's that for using the Scripture to turn the tables! Romans 2:1 anyone? "So you have no reason, whoever you are, for judging; --For in judging another, - you are judging yourself, -for you do the same things!". What God has made clear is that LOVE WORKS NO ILL & that principle should be a rock-solid guide motivating each to take a position of safety & deep concern about anyone who comes in contact with "your dirt" (& you theirs)!

From the Law's perspective, male & female can't be "different kinds of flesh" because Leviticus 19:19 makes it unlawful to mix "different sorts"; - & God isn't in the practice of violating his own Laws! Besides, Eve was made from Adam's side. From the man was made the woman; -And Adam himself said that she was "Flesh of his flesh"! "She shall be called WOMAN because she was taken out of man."!  Is what came from Adam different flesh than Adam? No!  "HETERO" is the WRONG WORD. The correct term is "HOMO" - because Eve was made from Adam's flesh and Paul said that "Men have one flesh" & Scripture goes on to say that "God has made from one blood all nations of man"!  It's time to repent of false presumptions about imagined "gender differences" & learn to see men like God sees! Are we learning yet?

According to the Scripture, the law was added to nurture life. Remember the encompassing & clarifying nature of "principles" that I discussed earlier. Well, that's a big one: LAW GIVEN TO NURTURE LIFE.  So then, when the Law names an act as a capital offense, -- it must be doing so because the offense is more destructive to life on a wide scale - than the smaller scale loss of the life of the violator/s when brought to justice.  That is a perspective for the making of "good law".  If the forbidden actions of men are a threat to the population (either by lawless social upheaval or bringing plague), then it is justified to take whatever action necessary to protect the population.  Since the principle of Equity applies under Moses' Law (Eye for eye, Tooth for tooth, Life for life) -- punishment is prescribed to meet the severity of the crime.  So, a law that names an offense as a capital crime, does so because the nature of the offense will ultimately destroy lives (& equity demands "Life for life"). Laws - especially these - must be applied with extreme care & bound tightly to the letter - lest the innocent suffer unjustly (Oy veh!)! The following prohibition carries a death sentence. In order to bind it properly to the letter of the law, a person must:

  1. Be able to read it in its original language (to bind the letter)
  2. Understand the rules of statutory construction
  3. Understand the context of all adhesive legal framework

I have yet to meet a "fundamentalist preechar" who can do those things, yet they throw the following Scripture around as if knew more than Moses did!

`And a man who lies with a male as one lies with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them. ' - Lev 20:13

The key phrase is "as one lies with a woman".  To understand what that delimiter means, you must study all related laws regarding lawful sexual relations between men & women according to the Torah.  A glaring hint is that fact that there is no reciprocal commandment forbidding women from laying with a female.  There is a legal principle: "Inclusio Unius Est Exclusio Alterious", -meaning that what is EXCLUDED from a statutory body is intentionally excluded.  That is a BIG DEAL.  Because God is no respecter of persons, -omitting "woman laying with female" immediately telegraphs the conclusion that it isn't the SAMENESS OF GENDER that is the concern of Leviticus 20:13! The Torah is perfect (complete).  But, to understand it & properly frame it's contents, you must study Law (the lack of understanding being the reason why most preachars can't help you when you end up in court).  In context, - it turns out that Leviticus 20:13 forbids but a lone act (AnalSex). This is true because "Love works N0 ILL" & the specific prohibition of Leviticus 20:13 is against an act that works so much "ILL" that it ruins entire societies & entire continents (And is happening right now)! 

What the commandment ultimately prohibits men from doing comes down to a difference in M/F physiology & there are numerous parallel commandments in the Torah (Moses' Law) that reinforce the same conclusion.  It also maintains complete harmony throughout the New Testament (Discard every use of the term "Sodomite" & "Homosexual" in the Bible. All uses are gross perversions of the underlying text and have no part in sound Scriptural translation)!  If you read Romans 1 carefully, you'll see that the so-called "anti-homosex" passage is actually anti-anal-sex (forbidding it between men & women as well as men & men.).  Peter warned that ignorant & unstable men would distort Paul's writing.  Turning a prohibition that is against the pathogenic-killer - AnalSex, -into a prohibition against morally-neutral Same-Gender-Affections - violates the fundamental rules of legal construction (& simultaneously adds & takes away from the Word of God), & prepares for those doing the substituting -the very judgments & plagues they decree on the innocent targets of their hell-bound doctrines! 

Feeling enlightened? By this time you should realize that it's not WH0 you pair-bond with, but H0W you treat the other person & yourself. Since "Love works N0 ILL", actions that hurt, demean or disease other people are actions that are not done out of love.  Since I'm discussing matters that routinely maim & kill people; --0nly a fool would try to tempt the grace of God ("Who, though they have knowledge of the law of God, that the fate of those who do these things is death, not only go on doing these things themselves, but give approval to those who do them." - Rom 1:32)!

What matters most is faith expressing itself in Love - one towards another.  Sexual conduct is a "big deal" because indiscretion negatively affects others -as well as yourself.  God didn't make rules for the sake of rules. He made them because there was danger present in certain actions, & laws in the Torah culled such actions at the root & prevented an entire forest of negative consequences from needing to be dealt with.  God's law provided the least intrusive way of averting such disasters.  There is a huge amount to learn from the principles of the Torah without being bound to its letter today (in a society that is literally incapable of living within it's framework anyway).  The Torah was designed to work in a theocracy where it could be fully implemented.  You just can't "half-do" something as comprehensive as that. God made a better way through the New Covenant & He changes individuals.  Grace steps in where there is imperfection; -- Despite the flaws of the world-systems they are subjugated to.

However, as Paul pointed out: Sin will deceive by misrepresenting the law itself! Moses Law carries stiff penalties for perverting it ("If a false witness makes a statement against a man, saying that he has done wrong, Then the two men, between whom the argument has taken place, are to come before the Lord, before the priests and judges who are then in power; And the judges will have the question looked into with care: and if the witness is seen to be false and to have made a false statement against his brother, Then do to him what it was his purpose to do to his brother: and so put away the evil from among you." - Dt 19);  -- But unstable people twist it to their own destruction & those of their listeners.   Understanding the simplicity of the Gospel message and the (2) commandments (that contain all the others by default) is a massively powerful tool to use when illustrating principles.  Sadly, too many "churches" that claim to "preach the gospel", -preach a counterfeit!

I am an intelligent man, & the limited understanding I have gained at what the Scripture shows God doing, leaves me awestruck at the sophistication of a mind that is as compassionate -as brilliant. This is not religious psychobabble. Those of us who genuinely worship God do not do it out of compelled obligation or lifeless tradition. We do it because - as we begin to really SEE Him with the mind's eye, - it leaves us literally awestruck.  To glimpse what He's up to - will leave you so speechless that you will need Him to fill the words in for you!  Perhaps coming to the realization of the points made at g0ys.org has given you some genuine food for thought - as others have experienced...   

Oh. Obey Acts 2:38.