Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36036 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24863 Feb 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the Bible didn't condemn homosexual behavior.
It doesn't. You use the Bible to condemn homosexuals. The Bible says you shouldn't be doing this.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24864 Feb 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You said the Bible didn't condemn homosexual behavior.
What you said I said is not what I said:

"I never said two boy angels were sent to Sodom."

I never said two boy angels.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality behavior as a sin. I've documented what the Bible did say and you, you just repeat your Biblicist opinion.

Sorry, KiMare, you do not get away with your spin doctor ways.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24865 Feb 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply asked how you can dictate these are 'fairy tales'. I used an example that has been touted on here many times, that has a number of verifications of the Biblical account. You focus on a possible conflict of information and ignore the similarities. Hardly scientific or unbiased.
Clueless! Boring! I document that the Flood was a Mesopotamian tale before the the biblical accounting. How is it that you discount every documentation and promptly repeat your opinions over and over again without documentation?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#24866 Feb 6, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
If a person is sexually attracted to the same sex, doesn't it follow that they would seek companionship with another person of the same sex? Why do you say that sex with a person of the same sex is wrong?
A person would seek companionship and sexual relations with another person of the same sex only if they were immoral. A moral person would not.

You would have to read my first comment to know the answer to your question.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T877M31CF...
Karen

Lake Zurich, IL

#24867 Feb 6, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, Karen, there are a ton of thinking, reasoning, intelligent people who disagree with you...
Smile.
They're not thinking, reasoning, or intelligent. They are delusional, indoctrinated lemmings, whose supernatural beliefs have no basis in reality. I really don't care who agrees or disagrees. The point is, it doesn't take much thought or reasoning to predicate one's life's beliefs on the supernatural writings (and ramblings) of a group of bronze-age nomads, who had absolutely no conception of how the real world works. The application of education, science and reasoning to our world, or a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense, as is found in the Wholly Babble. Gosh, that's a tough choice. I think I'll stick with fact over fiction, thank you.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#24868 Feb 6, 2014
akopen wrote:
Choosing to engage in sex is a choice whether one is homosexaul or heterosexual. Choosing to be homosexual is not a choice. It is instead how God created you. To choose to be sexual is not a sin. You diminish all sin, which is singular, representing sin as plural and without meaning. An act of sex can be sinful or, not. Defining the sin and associating it with sex is making sin pluralistic. It does not work that way. But it seems to be the way Christianity has gone; missing the basics of what sin is in the first place.
To your first point: I said as much in my comment. People may not choose the desires they experience, but they do have the choice to act or not upon those desires. Homosexual desires are no exception to this rule. To be homosexual is not how God created anyone, any more than being born with a physical defect is a deliberate act of God. Those are likely accidents of nature or circumstance, though God can and does use one's weakness to magnify His glory.

To be sexual in a way that is contrary to God's expressed will is certainly sin. The Greek word hamartia (&#7937;&#956;&#94 5;&#961;&#964;&#94 3;&#945;) is often translated as sin in the New Testament, and was used as a term in archery meaning "to miss the mark".

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#24869 Feb 6, 2014
Karen wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not thinking, reasoning, or intelligent. They are delusional, indoctrinated lemmings, whose supernatural beliefs have no basis in reality. I really don't care who agrees or disagrees. The point is, it doesn't take much thought or reasoning to predicate one's life's beliefs on the supernatural writings (and ramblings) of a group of bronze-age nomads, who had absolutely no conception of how the real world works. The application of education, science and reasoning to our world, or a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense, as is found in the Wholly Babble. Gosh, that's a tough choice. I think I'll stick with fact over fiction, thank you.
How can one be sure that you are based in reality? How does the real world work? Just how all-knowing are you?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#24870 Feb 6, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you said I said is not what I said:
"I never said two boy angels were sent to Sodom."
I never said two boy angels.
The Bible does not condemn homosexuality behavior as a sin. I've documented what the Bible did say and you, you just repeat your Biblicist opinion.
Sorry, KiMare, you do not get away with your spin doctor ways.
The Bible does condemn men laying with men as they would lie with a woman. It's right there in Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9, 10
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7

Whether that's homosexuality…… well, that depends on how one defines homosexuality.
Karen

Lake Zurich, IL

#24871 Feb 6, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
How can one be sure that you are based in reality? How does the real world work? Just how all-knowing are you?
If you have to ask such a silly query, you've just made my point, thank you very much.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24872 Feb 6, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
To your first point: I said as much in my comment. People may not choose the desires they experience, but they do have the choice to act or not upon those desires. Homosexual desires are no exception to this rule. To be homosexual is not how God created anyone, any more than being born with a physical defect is a deliberate act of God. Those are likely accidents of nature or circumstance, though God can and does use one's weakness to magnify His glory.
To be sexual in a way that is contrary to God's expressed will is certainly sin. The Greek word hamartia (&#7937;&#956;&#94 5;&#961;&#964;&#94 3;&#945;) is often translated as sin in the New Testament, and was used as a term in archery meaning "to miss the mark".
Charlie, no, you did not say as much. Your argument is circular. Homosexuality is how God creates some humans. There is no physical defect in homosexuality. Homosexuals are just as they were meant to be. When they act on their homosexual desires they are not doing so in sin. There is no passage in the Bible that defines sin as sex. Sex is not sin. If you think so then you have misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible does not define sexuality. There is no Godly precept that says sexuality is a sin. No precept that says homosexuality is a sin. Hence, "To be sexual in a way that is contrary to God's expressed will is certainly sin.", is "to miss miss the mark."

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24873 Feb 6, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does condemn men laying with men as they would lie with a woman. It's right there in Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9, 10
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
Whether that's homosexuality…… well, that depends on how one defines homosexuality.
What do you mean by condemn? Clarify please. For now, I will assume that you mean that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Doing a word study of the word, abomination, changes the meaning that modern Christianity has interpreted, condemning homosexuality as a sin. The word, abomination, relates to that which is disgusting, not a sin. Abomination is a modern interpretation, not a translation. The ancient Hebrew word, toevah, is translated, abhorrence, which means, disgusting. What is different in Hebrew ideology is what is disgusting. This emphasis is about a nationalism. Note that Leviticus is the constitution of Israel. When in Israel do as Israel.

There is no sin mentioned in Leviticus 20:13.

If you want documentation I will present that to you. If you have proof that is otherwise supportive of your interpretation I will require you to present that documentation. If you do not, I suspect, cannot, you should reconisider your interpretation of the Bible concerning homosexuality. Present the documentation or withdraw your interpretation.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24875 Feb 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does condemn men laying with men as they would lie with a woman. It's right there in Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9, 10
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
Whether that's homosexuality…… well, that depends on how one defines homosexuality.
Charlie, you forgot to mention Genesis 19, and yet, you mentioned Jude 7 which relies on Genesis 19 to validate the mention of Sodom and Gomorrah. Simply, Genesis 19 is about inhospitality. To define the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah there is only one passage in the Bible, Ezekiel 16: 48-52, that defines the sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16 does not mention homosexuality as one of the sins of Sodom. Therefore, Genesis 19 is not about homosexuality. Nor is Jude 7. Jude 7 speaks of angels of Genesis 6.

Jude 7: "10 (A) God's Past Judgments on the Wicked (5-7). Three OT examples are briefly cited. 5. destroyed those who did not believe: Cf. Nm 14:26-35. Paul draws more detailed morals from the account of Israel in the desert: 1 Cor 10:1-11 (cf. Also Heb 3:7-4:11; Ps 94:8-11). 6. The second example probably refers to the “sons of God” who took to wife the daughters of men (Gn 6:1-4). This seems implied in v. 7, since the Sodomites sinned “ina similar manner” to the angels. Furthermore, Enoch (quoted in vv. 14-15) gives great emphasis to this sin of the angels (or heavenly “Watchers”) and to its punishment, in terms very similar to those used here by Jude (cf. Enoch 6-16; esp. 10:4-6, 11,13; 12:4; 15:3;19:1). Cf. Also 2 Pt 2:4-6, where the fall of the angels occurs along with that of the Sodomites; and also T. Naphtali 3:4-5. The imprisoned angels awaiting judgment in 2 Pt and Jude are identified by some with the “spirits in prison” of 1 Pt 3:19 (see comment). 7. Sodom and Gomorrah: Cf. Gn 19:4-25. These cities are frequently cited as prime examples of sin and its punishment in the OT Prophets and in the Apocrypha. Cf. Also Mt 10:15 par.;11:24; Lk17:29; 2Pt 2:6. surrounding cities: Admah and Zeboiim (Dt 29:22; cf. Hos 11:8). in a similar manner to them: Probably refers to the sinful angels of v. 6. going off after an alien flesh: As the angels sought out creatures of another order of being (women), so the Sodomites sought out angels (Gen 19:5; cf. T. Asher 7:1). serve as an example: The Dead Sea area, redolent of fire and brimstone, was a constant reminder of the punishment of these buried cities. In Jewish tradition the fire that fell upon them continues to burn on as the fire of hell (cf. F. Lang, ThWNT 6, 945f.)." JBC[60:10]

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24876 Feb 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does condemn men laying with men as they would lie with a woman. It's right there in Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9, 10
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
Whether that's homosexuality…… well, that depends on how one defines homosexuality.
Earlier post I said that I found nothing on Jude with Early Church Fathers. Since then I have found three mentions of Jude. The first two listed here are mere mentions of Jude. The third, Clement of Alexandria has something significant to say about Jude.

Three Early Church Fathers mentioned Jude.

1. Origen; ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS: ON FIRST PRINCIPLES,(3.2.1).
The Apostle Jude (actually, today not considered an Apostle but a servant of Jesus) makes mention of Moses.
A.D. 185-254

2. Tertulian; ON THE APPAREL OF WOMEN,(1.3). Jude testimony to Enoch, Scripture of. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-06....
A.D. 160-225

3. Clement of Alexandria; THE INSTRUCTOR (3.8)
A.D. 215

“Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust , through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering.“For I would have you know,” says Jude,“that God, having once saved His people from the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not; and the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved to the judgment of the great day, in everlasting chains under darkness of the savage angels.”4

4Jude 5,6.
Ante_Nicene Fathers, Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, p. 282.

Look closely at Tertulian's description of Sodomites.“Much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; ...” Now note how each indicates some sort of abuse or idolatry. Notice specifically that Tertulian speaks about pederasty,“love for boys.” This is a classic catalog of vices with resemblance to what later becomes the Seven Capital Sins; as if almost an introduction to the classification of Sodomy. Over and over again the Church sees Sodomy as homosexuality. In documentation, it is erroneous to refer to pederasty as homosexuality.

Nothing associated with the Early Church speaks of Jude having anything to do with homosexuality. Of the three references only Tertulian comes close to addressing Sodomy with homosexuality. I've documented now what Jude says. I've also documented what the Early Church Fathers said about Jude.

Christianity has misrepresented homosexuality and this documents that Jude says nothing about Sodom and Gomorrah having anything to do with homosexuality.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#24877 Feb 7, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible does condemn men laying with men as they would lie with a woman. It's right there in Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:24-27
I Cor. 6:9, 10
I Timothy 1:10
Jude 7
Whether that's homosexuality…… well, that depends on how one defines homosexuality.
"It must be admitted that Paul's use of the word impurity (akatharsia) here is out of line with his usage elsewhere (1 Thessalonians 2:3, 4:3-8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Colossians 3:5-6; Ephesians 4:19, 5:3-5 and perhaps Romans 6:19). Paul had already understood Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart. So for Paul, as for Jesus, impurity generally means moral corruption, and it truly is a matter of ethics. However, in those other places Paul links the word akatharsia with things that are clearly wrong and sinful, like greed and covetousness, deceit and trickery or idolatry. In striking contrast, in Romans 1:24, Paul links uncleanness only with disgrace and shame. As we have seen, these have no ethical connotation for Paul. So Paul's use of akatharsia here is peculiar. He is using impurity in the old sense associated with the Jewish Law. But he is not alone in this. When the Jewish Law is in question, other places in the Christian Scriptures also continue to use the word impurity in the Jewish sense (Matthew 23:27; Acts 10:14, 28, 11:8)."

But why is Paul making a point of impurity? Jesus and Christianity are not concerned about purity; the Gentile Romans never did have such Jewish concerns. So why does Paul mention it?" What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., p. 94.

Three times Paul repeats the phrase, "God gave them up;" verse 24 introduces the first effect, impurity; verse 25, Paul digresses and verse 26 he repeats the phrase again, repeating the first effect to bring the emphasis back to the first mention of, impurity; 24, the degrading of their bodies and 25, the degrading of their passions; "And" verse 28 introduces the second effect, a new effect regarding evil, malice and real sins. Two effects, 24-27 on sexual matters and 28-32 on a list of evils. The two effects are strikingly different and yet Paul must of been deliberate for a reason.

But what was that reason? The answer lies in verse 29 where the Greek use of the perfect participle pepleromenous would indicate that the passage was referring to those that were "already filled" with every wickedness and the time of the impurity, another time, a future or present time, where wickedness and impurity are not the same.

Paul speaks to two different things, wickedness and impurity or, real wrong and uncleanness. Abomination is defined as uncleanness (Leviticus 20:25,26) and relates to the impurity which Paul speaks. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, what was an abomination was what God called idolatry. This was to keep Israel separate from Canaanite religious fertility rites. What the Holiness Code prohibited, and many laws prohibited various Canaanite practices but among these laws the one prohibiting male-male sex (the only reference in the OT is in Leviticus), was not for sexual reasons but for religious reasons. Idolatry, as in the worship of other gods is the real wrong. Here the concern has to do with purity. It has to do with Gentile idolatry.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24879 Feb 7, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Also, read the above and realize how easy it is to make mistakes. For example, "The most important documents, often only parchment fragments that had to be meticulously restored, were the earliest known copies of the Old Testament."
This statement is misleading. The Dead Sea Scrolls contains many writings other than what could be called "the Old Testament" and only part of The Hebrew Bible.
The scrolls have traditionally been identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.[5][6]
Due to the poor condition of some of the Scrolls, not all of them have been identified. Those that have been identified can be divided into three general groups:(1) some 40% of them are copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible,(2) approximately another 30% of them are texts from the Second Temple Period and which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and (3) the remaining roughly 30% of them are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
Notice how they don't mention the Karaites?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24880 Feb 7, 2014
cory71 wrote:
I accept the fact that someone, except me, may have noticed my grammatical error.lol
Correction on post #24810...
Oh! LOL! You think I'm taking you as serious as you do. Sorry, none of my sources or experts are posted here as I would use them. I find the psychology of this thread interesting, that's all. Nor do I post here to effect permanent change, I can't, not my job, neither can you. You people don't engage, you argue.
"I see simply people posting here are desperate to be *accepted*" .
I read it as a pointed pun.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24881 Feb 7, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks snyper. My point still stands, Jesus did not establish Christianity.
Trying to understand what Jesus taught is the beginning.
Very true.

As one sheds the onion skins of "christendom", mining backwards to the source, a very different view emerges from that of tradition.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24882 Feb 7, 2014
Burt wrote:
<quoted text>You are making up ridiculous lies. All homosexual behavior is repeatedly condemned in both Testaments and in the plainest of terms. The condemnations are echoed in The Didache, perhaps the oldest Christian writing.
I wasn't talking about that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24883 Feb 7, 2014
Jacob wrote:
I just want to say that Christianity doesn't condemn gay people- it just condemns the homosexual act. God teaches us to love everyone, no matter what they do. So, I love all gay people- I just condemn their act of being homosexual.
Gay orientation is not an "act". It's identity.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#24884 Feb 7, 2014
Jacob wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, Christians don't HATE anyone. We hate the ACT of being homosexual, but we LOVE the person, because that's what's in the Bible.
You believe that nonsense assertion?

Read history.

As it is, you're just falling into the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's diatribes against free trade have alrea... 20 min Gabble Ratchet 2
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 47 min TCF 8,876
News Letters on Homestead Heritage: Community or cult? (Oct '07) 3 hr Baybeh 8,041
News COMMENTARY: Donald Trump and a comprehensive pl... 4 hr HOLLA ISABELLA 7
News Nikki Haley's Views on Russia Differ Sharply fr... 5 hr George 1
News No Shelter for an African-American Muslim Under... 5 hr Frogface Kate 9
News Our Opinion: Trust Act needs further review 6 hr Cops are degenerates 2
More from around the web