Where in the NEW TESTAMENT does it say being gay is a sin?

[Fenny the Fox]

Well that's a problem. What's the correct word for the act?

"Fornication", maybe? I mean, that pretty much covers it. Do we actually need a specific word for it?

Or specify same-sex sexual activity/sex. Which is long winded, but at least then we are being accurate and linguistically correct.

 

[theophilus777]

"Fornication", maybe? I mean, that pretty much covers it. Do we actually need a specific word for it?

Or specify same-sex sexual activity/sex. Which is long winded, but at least then we are being accurate and linguistically correct.

Well the problem is if half the folks attempting to discuss the topic mean one thing by the word homosexual, and the other mean something else ...

I think it helps to clarify by using the word orientation when that is what we mean, or by specifying we are not referring to orientation when we in fact aren't. I would like Christians to recognize that orientation is not sinful in itself. And maybe show some compassion for what it must be like to live in this world with such an orientation; it must be difficult. Somehow I don't expect the RC saying "that's your cross to bear" offers much solace.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Well the problem is if half the folks attempting to discuss the topic mean one thing by the word homosexual, and the other mean something else ...

I think it helps to clarify by using the word orientation when that is what we mean, or by specifying we are not referring to orientation when we in fact aren't. I would like Christians to recognize that orientation is not sinful in itself. And maybe show some compassion for what it must be like to live in this world with such an orientation; it must be difficult. Somehow I don't expect the RC saying "that's your cross to bear" offers much solace.

Purely from a language basis, I disagree with who should specify to begin with. Since the overall, generally supported definition for "homosexual" is referring to orientation and not action, then that should be the basis. If the person is viewing from the lens of use that relegates it to a synonym for a sexual activity, then they should be the ones to specify it. Makes everything just oh so much easier when we just use the accepted, intended purpose (in this case) of the word in the first place.


On the other bits - I can attest to it being very hard. And the general mantra [not just Catholic, most denominations at this point] of "it is a cross to bear, deal with it" (no offense meant to anyone, that is pretty much what it feels like they are saying) certainly does nothing to comfort or help.

Sadly, from a sin perspective, I am weak, and I fail. (I specify "from a sin perspective" because otherwise I am very happy and feel blessed with the relationship I have.) Thankfully I have my belief in Christ that when I fall I am still saved.

 

[SaphireOwl]

All Christians support gays.

We love them as we love ourselves. And we realize they are sinners too. Because there is no scripture that says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and love their behaviors, sins, wrong doing, too.

Jesus came to save the world from sin. Not co-sponsor the proliferation of sin as a holy "OK!"
To answer your question with just one example:

The Greek: 1 Corinthians 6:9

Is being gay a sin in the New Testament? I seem to recall a few verses in the gospels but can't remember and I don't have time to read the whole thing. And why should it be any different than any other sin? Are we going to ban gluttony? Anger? Jealousy? I'm sick o so called Christians attacking gays.
My nephew is gay and I love him dearly. I am having a very hard time withy faith lately and am questioning everything I know about Christianity.
I am angry at God because of all the recent loss I have suffered. I have been forsaken to say the least. John 3:16 says that I only have to believe in Jesus and I will have eternal life. Yes I believe. But I am done with the hypocrisy that surrounds me at church.
Please respond. I cannot be the only Christian supporting gays.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

All Christians support gays.

We love them as we love ourselves. And we realize they are sinners too. Because there is no scripture that says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and love their behaviors, sins, wrong doing, too.

Jesus came to save the world from sin. Not co-sponsor the proliferation of sin as a holy "OK!"
To answer your question with just one example:

The Greek: 1 Corinthians 6:9

Umm...wrong link perhaps? That is an interpretative analysis on how it ISN'T called a sin in the NT.

The Bible is the key instruction manual for Christians, but many fail to realize that the English translations of today, often reflect the bias and history of sexual repression of the Church through the ages and may have nothing to do with what God or writers were really meaning to say. God's real opinion is found by digging beneath the surface, and doing that will lessen the danger of misunderstanding, resulting in confusing our homophobic opinion with God's. God does not call today's homosexuality sin, only you do.

 

[Kyle Arn]

First of the Old Testament is still a very valid law book. Think of the ten commandments which we still must obey. The Old Testament had a group of laws that had to be obeyed. Now when the New Testament came most of the laws were taken out. If you had any diseases you were to live outside the camp. For the health of the people by the time the New Testament the Romans brought allot more healthy foods and so the people did not have to worry as much. Many put the law of homosexual-ism with this group. However it does not belong there this is still a law that must be obeyed. Along with all the other sexual sins. The only difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. We do not have to worry so much about our health. We do not have to make sacrifices any more. Other then that. You should obey the Old Testament laws. In accordance with the New Testament laws. Plus do you think Jesus would want you to lie with another man as you like with a woman.

Mark 10:6-9 ESV /

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

God intended marriage for man and woman so let it be know through out the world. That this is so.

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

It is abomination why do you think Sodom was destroyed.

 

[theophilus777]

Since the overall, generally supported definition for "homosexual" is referring to orientation and not action, then that should be the basis.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. "Should" doesn't translate well into "is." When Christians discuss this, most of them are going to be referring to the action. It is significant at this juncture in our society's development to tease out the difference.

If the person is viewing from the lens of use that relegates it to a synonym for a sexual activity, then they should be the ones to specify it. Makes everything just oh so much easier when we just use the accepted, intended purpose (in this case) of the word in the first place.

Who's intent? Again it comes down to interpretation, meaning, and all those other things associated with commuinciation. Which is ALWAYS a 2-way street. It's really not too hard to observe that the biggest obstacle with this whole issue is people not actually communicating with one another; just talking at people instead.

Sadly, from a sin perspective, I am weak, and I fail.

Don't we all! This would be a good thing for we who profess Christ to not lose track of.

 

[Sammy-San]

First of the Old Testament is still a very valid law book. Think of the ten commandments which we still must obey. The Old Testament had a group of laws that had to be obeyed. Now when the New Testament came most of the laws were taken out. If you had any diseases you were to live outside the camp. For the health of the people by the time the New Testament the Romans brought allot more healthy foods and so the people did not have to worry as much. Many put the law of homosexual-ism with this group. However it does not belong there this is still a law that must be obeyed. Along with all the other sexual sins. The only difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. We do not have to worry so much about our health. We do not have to make sacrifices any more. Other then that. You should obey the Old Testament laws. In accordance with the New Testament laws. Plus do you think Jesus would want you to lie with another man as you like with a woman.

Mark 10:6-9 ESV /

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

God intended marriage for man and woman so let it be know through out the world. That this is so.

Leviticus 18:22 ESV

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

It is abomination why do you think Sodom was destroyed.

Some people say that Christians are against "equal rights" and "marriage equality". How would you respond to those arguements? I know gay marriage is wrong, but it's very hard to argue against people who say that "you are against equal rights".

 

[SaphireOwl]

Umm...wrong link perhaps? That is an interpretative analysis on how it ISN'T called a sin in the NT.

With no link to the interpretive analysis?

And no, that was not the wrong link to 1 Corinthians 6:9 Greek Study. But the analysis that says homosexuality is not a sin is absolutely wrong.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Some people say that Christians are against "equal rights" and "marriage equality". How would you respond to those arguements? I know gay marriage is wrong, but it's very hard to argue against people who say that "you are against equal rights".

Simply ask them where the equality stops.
Polygamy? Zoophila? Pedophilia? Ephebophilia? All having the right to call themselves entitled to equal access to marriage?

Where does the line get drawn when people demand the equal right to sign a civil contract?

 

[seeingeyes]

It is abomination why do you think Sodom was destroyed.

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49)

 

[theophilus777]

With no link to the interpretive analysis?

And no, that was not the wrong link to 1 Corinthians 6:9 Greek Study. But the analysis that says homosexuality is not a sin is absolutely wrong.

Ok so do you agree with that Greek study, that that passage doesn't refer to homosexual acts? I was going to ask you if you thought that was true for every NT passage because your link implies it does. I've seen people attempt to defend that but I don't think it holds up.

 

[theophilus777]

Some people say that Christians are against "equal rights" and "marriage equality". How would you respond to those arguements? I know gay marriage is wrong, but it's very hard to argue against people who say that "you are against equal rights".

This is EXACTLY what the issue should be, and its very easy to be reasonable on it. Why does the LGBT community insist on the word "marriage," rather than something else (civil union or otherwise) that grants full protection under the law? Only one reason, and that is they expect society to dignify their behavior equally with heterosexual marriage. That is NOT within the jurisdiction of the Courts to determine!

We will never be duped into thinking homosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage. Why pretend it is?

Equal civil rights is another matter entirely, and nobody is opposing that for gays. They could've already had every civil right they can imagine secured, fully protected and settled, years ago.

The real problem right now is so many Christians are so eager to give them their rights that they are willing to violate their conscience that knows SSM is wrong, and go along with it anyway. As if we had to? Having a large majority doing that is just not a recipe for a peaceful society.

Regardless what the SCOTUS may do once this comes before them, the Church needs to get her convictions straight and let that Light shine. And in the meantime SCOTUS can be swamped with memos from friends of the Court ...

 

[theophilus777]

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49)

This is not intended to be an explanation 100o years after the fact of why S & G had fire rained down upon them. This comes from a section letting Israel know she has not gotten away with secret sin. So you may find more complexity here than first meets the eye ...

 

[SaphireOwl]

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49)

Jude 1:7

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Ok so do you agree with that Greek study, that that passage doesn't refer to homosexual acts? I was going to ask you if you thought that was true for every NT passage because your link implies it does. I've seen people attempt to defend that but I don't think it holds up.

That link was offered to the member that argued they're in favor of gays being gay. Believing there is no thing in scripture that condemns homosexuality.

The prostitutes argument in that link is often employed as proof that there are no scriptures that condemn homosexuality. But in truth, the prostitutes being referred to were pagans who worshiped the god Baal.
As prostitutes they'd have relations or, "know", both men and women. And probably other types of partners as well.

Their behaviors were offered up as example of what God condemned in the lost behaviors of idolaters such as that. And as that example was employed in the teaching of right behavior the immoral fornicating acts that were part of paganism became an example on two fronts. Idol worship and moral degradation.

If you read threads that discuss homosexuality and homosexual marriage here, older threads, you'll see where that argument and even the Greek in the article, has been invoked to defend the very same thing that is posited now in the OP. That there is no condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible.

But there is. It's a matter of context and realizing when we're talking about prostitutes we're not talking about moral character. Prostitution then is as debased as it is now. Even if it was employed as a religious pagan rite.

 

[tremble]

There have been some suggestions that if gays stop thier physical relations then they could be right with God despite what they may feel for the same sex. In other words, they commit to celibacy.

Personally, this is the only solution I can see which would accurately deal with the problem, and there are probably a good many other Christians who feel that way too.

But I can imagine the gay person thinking, "that's easy for you to say" and in many cases they would be right. Maybe it has become too easy for us to make such a life changing judgement on others. I'm not saying that the judgement is wrong but that we may have lost our appreciation for the cost to the other person.

Whether they are born gay or influenced in early childhood doesn't change the fact that, from their perspective, they are being asked to take responsibility for something that wasn't their fault.

But what if we Christians did something to show that we do care about the cost? What if we had Christians who were willing to make the same commitment to celibacy as they ask of the gay person, like a support buddy? Are there Christians out there who care enough about the salvation of the gays they preach to, to do something to show it?

Or, what about forsaking some other passion, like sports or some other hobby? Or abstaining from our favorite material possession? What about abstaining from the internet! (screams internally).

If the gay person can see that we are willing to suffer along with them, maybe they'd be more willing to believe that our judgements of their sexuality are sincere. Maybe they would be more willing to listen and act on our suggestions?

 

[theophilus777]

Tremble, I think you have a good heart here, but I don't think those actions would achieve the stated goal. Rather, our own sanctification is worth the cost. Any such a commitment is up to the individual. A homosexual not even convicted of his/her sin is not going to make any such commitment that is only appropriate within a marriage to Christ.

If we are sanctified, we may be more effective witnesses. If a homosexual decides to convert, they might decide to become chaste. Before they do, we as Christians have no business trying to impose our standards upon them.

Back to civil rights, those are exactly that. Marriage is still something other, a Blessing from God. We owe it to all involved not to compromise on those standards, nor do we have to in order to give gays their rights and full protection under the law.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Who's intent?

The German psychologist who coined the word not even 200 years ago?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

With no link to the interpretive analysis?

And no, that was not the wrong link to 1 Corinthians 6:9 Greek Study. But the analysis that says homosexuality is not a sin is absolutely wrong.

I was refering to YOUR link being an analysis about how it was not a sin. I mean...I am trying to figure out why you linked it, that's all. I mean, why post a link that provides an analysis that you clearly disagree with to answer the question "where in the NT is it called a sin"? (And by the by, yeah...I am on the fence about such an analysis. ON the one hand, I do think it has merit, but on the other, it does not exclude other verses that seem clear on whether sexual activity is a sin for same-sex couples. Not to mention, even if it were the case, it would still be a sin in that it is fornication.)