We are not a house who cares much about gendering a baby's clothes. It's a BABY. It doesn't care. So we'd take the kid to yard sales and let them pick out whatever baby clothes caught their fancy and would fit. Some were 'boy' and some were 'girl'. Kiddo loved floral prints because they're a baby (yeah my kid has always picked their own clothes).

Anyway, my kid LOVED TO CLIMB. Sometimes.

It was weird. Sometimes they were all over the sofa and the playground equipment and MY LEGS and sometimes they just. Weren't. Couldn't figure out what was going on.

Until I caught them trying to climb on rhe sofa in one of their pretty flowered pants.

They COULDN'T LIFT THEIR LEGS PROPERLY. And gave up, and did something else.

So I tested this out and... Yeah. The kid COULDN'T climb in ANY of their girl pants. Any. Put them in boy clothes and suddenly the kid is on everything again.

We stopped buying girl pants completely until they were old enough to test them and my kid is a TEENAGER now and i still make them lift their legs individually and jump if it's a girl fit.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO MEAN TO DO IT.

But then it hit me

It’s also pride month.

A month where many people celebrate sin….

The one verse that says something about homosexuality? “Man shall not lay with man”? It’s misinterpreted, I’ve gotten multiple pastors to admit that, it’s supposed to be “man shall not lay with boy”. Pedophilia, not homosexuality.

That being said, Gods whole point all the time is love. Love thu neighbor. Embrace sinners. Love. Love is love is love. Why would a God that tells us to love, be against love?

I appreciate your religion, and I appreciate your prayers. But they are unnecessary. I am not going to Hell, and I never was. Love is not, and never will be, a sin.

Can’t eat shrimp.

Can’t wear mixed fabrics.

Can’t get a divorce.

Just saying, if you’re gonna be nit picky about following the Bible’s rules, either follow all of them or let people live their lives. You can’t just go through the Bible and pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. That wasn’t the disciplines intention.

also

“Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9), and that homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).  If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so, then shouldn’t we also obey the other laws about shellfish, seed, fabrics, and fields because that is in Leviticus as well?  If not, then why not?  Why would Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow?

First of all, not all of Leviticus is written to everyone.  There were abominations that applied only to the Jews such as eating shellfish, rabbit, and pork, etc., which were things that typologically represented purity before the Lord.  We know this because God says, “Speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  He gives instructions to the Israelites, not to the rest of the nations.

Here is a list of instances when the occurrence of the phrase “Speak to the Sons of Israel saying…” is found in Leviticus, the book under consideration.

Lev. 4:2, atonement for unintentional sins

Lev. 7:23, don’t eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat

Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord

Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat

Lev. 12:2, uncleanness after giving birth

Lev. 23:24, rest on 1st day of 7th month

Lev. 23:34, Feast of Booths on 15th day of 7th month

Lev. 24:15, the one cursing God will bear his sin

So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.

However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel, but to everyone else also.  Again, let’s look at Leviticus.

Lev. 18:22-30, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled 25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.’”

What abominations is Lev. 18:22-30 speaking of?  Contextually, chapter 17 is about blood atonement procedures, so that is for Israel, not for everyone.  In Chapter 18 God says to Israel, “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you,” (Lev. 18:3).  So, now instead of it applying only to Israel, God mentions things that are done by Egypt and the land of Canaan.  What were the things those nations did?  The chapter contains the following.

Lev. 18:6-18, don’t uncover the nakedness of various relatives.

Lev. 18:19, don’t have sexual relations with woman on her period

Lev. 18:20, don’t have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife

Lev. 18:21, don’t offer children to Molech

Lev. 18:22, don’t lie with a male as with a female

Lev. 18:23 don’t have intercourse with animals.

So, we see there are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites, and there are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed.  It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

Three divisions of the Law in Leviticus

A common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular, Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law:  civil, ceremonial, and moral.  This is important because the civil and ceremonial law are not in effect now, but the moral law is.  Let’s take a look at these divisions within the book of Leviticus since it is the book under examination.

Civil - Expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government

Ceremonial - Expired with the fulfillment of priestly work of Christ (Matt. 3:15)

Moral - No Expiration because it is based on God’s character.  "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,“ (Lev. 19:2)

Justice practices (Lev. 24:17-23)

Law of property redemption (Lev. 25)

Be just with the poor, (Lev. 19:15)

Do not hate in your heart (Lev. 19:17)

Retain just scales in commerce (Lev. 19:35f)

Robbery, extortion, false witness, and restitution (Lev. 6:1-7)

Various sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev. 1,2,3,4,5,6)

Priestly duties (Lev. 7:1-37)

Laws on animals for food (Lev. 11:1-47)

Cleaning house of leper (Lev. 14:33-57)

Law of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-28;17:1-16)

Regulations for Priests (Lev. 21,22)

Festivals (Lev. 23:1-25)

Do not steal or lie (Lev. 19:11)

Do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13)

No idolatry (Lev. 26:1-13)

Don’t sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5)

Don’t commit adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc. (Lev. 20:9-21)

You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category.  In addition, as stated earlier, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites.  Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.  Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said: “speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply to us today.

Should we also dismiss the commands not to lie, steal, or commit adultery?

If, as some argue, we are not under the Law and therefore we can dismiss Leviticus along with its clear condemnation of homosexuality, then shouldn’t we also dismiss Levitical teachings that warn against lying (Lev. 19:11), theft (Lev. 19:13), bearing false witness (Lev. 19:16), hating your fellow man (Lev. 19:17), exacting vengeance (Lev. 19:18), avoiding unjust balances (Lev. 19:36), sacrificing children (Lev. 20:1-5), committing adultery (Lev. 20:10), committing incest (Lev. 20:11-14), and the practice of bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16)?  Of course not.

Furthermore, if we are to basically dump the book of Leviticus because it is Old Testament law, then why are parts of Leviticus quoted in the New Testament as still being valid?

          LeviticusNew Testament

Lev. 19:2, “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.”

1 Pet. 1:16, “because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”“

Lev. 19:18, ”“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”

Matt. 22:39, “The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”“

Lev. 26:12, “I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.”

2 Cor. 6:16, “Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”“

Are we to dismiss Leviticus along with the idea of being holy, of loving our neighbor, and that God will walk among us in the person of Jesus?  Of course not.  To do so by saying we are not under the Law displays deep theological ignorance and exegetical prejudice. There are certainly aspects of Leviticus which are no longer applicable to us today (civil and ceremonial), but there are other parts that still are, as is stated above in the moral aspect of the Law that was intended as admonitions not just against Israel but the other nations as well.

Finally, when we see that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, it is clear that we cannot just dismiss Leviticus as a whole along with its moral regulations on sexual activity.  Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Leviticus and its condemnation cannot be dismissed by saying we are no longer under Old Testament Law.”

Marriage is an image of God’s relationship with the Church. The husband is to love and protect his wife as an image of how God loves and protects His church, and the wife is to love and submit to her husband as the church loves and submits to God. This is not a picture that can function in the same way in a homosexual relationship.

Genesis says man and woman should leave their families and become one flesh–sexual relations are for a married couple only. A number of the verses above touch on that, it was considered adultery for someone to sleep with anyone other than their spouse. Paul in 1 Corinthians said that if one was consumed with passion then it was better to marry so he doesn’t sin.

Looking at the Bible as a whole, it paints a pretty clear picture of the role of sex and marriage. Sex is a gift to a married couple to strength their marriage and to produce children. And a married couple is a man and a woman who point towards the union between God and the church. Anything else is not God’s design, and thus a sin.

And yes, this includes causal sex outside of marriage. This includes things such as divorce (though there are situations like unfaithfulness and abuse that have grounds for this). This includes things such as homosexual relationships.

Hi anon! Here’s the gist:

The goodness or worthiness of a human life is not dependent on the abilities of the person. It is also not dependent on how easy or pleasant their life is. It is inherent.

Suffering is an evil, but it does not reduce the person to less than a person. A person in pain is still a person. 

Neediness and vulnerability is not an evil. To be dependent on others for help and care is not undignified. We are all of us dependent on one another.

Death “on one’s own terms” is not a desirable or admirable category, and is merely dressing up the ordinary category of suicide. Taking one’s own life is not better than having death “happen” to you. We wouldn’t feel comfortable with a happy, loved, young person suddenly freely deciding that it was time for them to die; we only invent this category for lives that we feel are unworthy.

Assisted suicide assumes that when a person a) no longer has all the abilities they used to (including mental capacity), b) is in pain, and/or c) finds themselves in need of a lot of help, either in the sense of nursing care or in the sense of “becoming a burden” on their family, that it is more compassionate and dignified to help this person end their life. This is an affront to the inherent worth of human life, and it also makes a mockery of compassion. Compassion literally means “to suffer with”. Rather than doing away with a person so we no longer have to face their suffering, compassion accompanies them, does its best to alleviate their hurt, and mourns with them the hurt that remains. Hospice or palliative care is infinitely more compassionate than assisted suicide. 

That’s more or less the inherent argument against assisted suicide. There are also slippery slope-type dangers which are reasons to oppose it. Once assisted suicide is legalized for those in a state of physical pain and dependence at the end of their lives, it becomes ever more difficult to explain why suicide isn’t also the answer for mentally ill people who are suffering mental anguish, or disabled people who are in physical pain and/or dependent on others, and then assisted suicide expands and becomes ever more and more predatory. Our culture worships autonomy and usefulness, which has always had the effect of making the lives of mentally ill/disabled/elderly people seem to be worth less. Assisted suicide is the ultimate reinforcement of that attitude, finally claiming that it is actually true that these people would be better off dead and society would be better off without them.

This should horrify us. What is the difference between a mentally ill person who has made the choice that their suffering is too great and their quality of life so poor they would like to exercise their right to die, and a mentally ill person who succumbs to their suicidal ideation and steps into traffic? Only a doctor’s note. And who are doctors to decide when life is no longer worth living?? How are they to know that circumstances will never improve? How are they to know what impact a person’s life has on all those around them? And how naive would we have to be to imagine that these decisions would be made from a position of neutrality? Medical facilities and insurance companies would be less and less incentivized to actually care for vulnerable groups, when they can much more easily and cheaply funnel them towards self-destruction.

The possibility of assisted suicide, once it is introduced, is not just going to be picked by individuals with a lot of options exercising their autonomy with perfect understanding and consent. It’s an option which as soon as it’s on the table exercises a kind of pressure: aren’t you afraid of pain? You don’t want to be a financial burden on your family, do you? What good is your life if all you can do is lie in a bed? Won’t your loved ones come to resent all the help you need? If insurance doesn’t cover care and it does covered assisted suicide isn’t it selfish for you to go on living? Its very possibility is corrosive of civilized society, breaking down the connections we have to one another and leaving us all alone and afraid. It holds our worst fears over our heads—what if I’m only really worthwhile because of what I can do, what if helping me is a burden, what if my pain is too big for people to love me in it. I think these fears are wrong about human nature and human friendship. But a culture which has legal assisted suicide is a culture which does its best to make those fears into a reality.

Now, there still is nuance. Purposefully ending one’s own life is morally impermissible, but that does not mean that we are obliged to prolong life infinitely using any means necessary. If there is a surgery which will slightly prolong your life but drastically decrease your quality of life, you do not have to have the surgery. If you’ve been on dialysis for years and the toll it’s taking on your body is starting to pile up, you can cease dialysis. You can have a DNR. You can receive morphine in the days leading up to your death, even in quantities which would hasten (but not cause) your death, if that is what is required to keep you comfortable. If death is on its way to you, it’s okay to stand and face it and allow it to come.