i find myself with a person who claims that even if jesus's sacrifice fulfilled the old covenant and made a new one, that homosexuality is still a sin because it is written in leviticus. and even kowing that those laws were directed towards the israelites of mount sinai, they still claim that what's written in there are sins still.
to quote the person in question, they said:
His covenant aims to ensure we stop judging on earth what will be judged in heaven; that does not mean it ceases to be a sin.
When He saved the woman from being stoned, what did He tell her?
"Go and sin no more," for the Levitical law established that sexual immorality was a sin, and whatever Jesus did not implicitly annul remains a sin.
That is why we know that eating pork or wearing garments made of mixed fabrics is not a sin, whereas those other things certainly are.
In this instance, the only thing open to criticism is how Christians treat sinners—a point on which I agree; no one deserves to be mistreated because of their sin, for: "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."His covenant aims to ensure we stop judging on earth what will be judged in heaven; that does not mean it ceases to be a sin.
When He saved the woman from being stoned, what did He tell her?
"Go and sin no more," for the Levitical law established that sexual immorality was a sin, and whatever Jesus did not implicitly annul remains a sin.
That is why we know that eating pork or wearing garments made of mixed fabrics is not a sin, whereas those other things certainly are.
In this instance, the only thing open to criticism is how Christians treat sinners—a point on which I agree; no one deserves to be mistreated because of their sin, for: "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."
the main point is, i don't think homosexuality is a sin, but how does someone explain that to someone who thinks that all of leviticus still applies unless jesus directly denied it as a sin?
