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

[theophilus777]

So let me stick my neck out here in the attempt to clarify:

some passages typically used to beat people over the head on the homosexuality issue weren't focusing on homosexuality at all, but neither do they defend any immoral practice. Homosexuality is just lumped in with all of them.

Homosexuality itself is labeled a sin in the OT, and that is specifically affirmed in the NT; however, it is not some "mega sin," worse than all other sexual sins. People have added that on their own, without the directive of either God or Scripture.

SaphireOwl, does that adequately state why you put that link in this thread?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

So let me stick my neck out here in the attempt to clarify:

some passages typically used to beat people over the head on the homosexuality issue weren't focusing on homosexuality at all, but neither do they defend any immoral practice. Homosexuality is just lumped in with all of them.

Homosexuality itself is labeled a sin in the OT, and that is specifically affirmed in the NT; however, it is not some "mega sin," worse than all other sexual sins. People have added that on their own, without the directive of either God or Scripture.

SaphireOwl, does that adequately state why you put that link in this thread?

I can see that, yeah. Which I would certainly agree to, if that is what Owl meant.

 

[SaphireOwl]

So let me stick my neck out here in the attempt to clarify:

some passages typically used to beat people over the head on the homosexuality issue weren't focusing on homosexuality at all, but neither do they defend any immoral practice. Homosexuality is just lumped in with all of them.

Homosexuality itself is labeled a sin in the OT, and that is specifically affirmed in the NT; however, it is not some "mega sin," worse than all other sexual sins. People have added that on their own, without the directive of either God or Scripture.

SaphireOwl, does that adequately state why you put that link in this thread?

In part yes. When a Christian says they support gays that's great. We are to love people as Christ loves us. However, there isn't any scripture that says we are to love their sins.

The link was afforded to address the OP and those who posted, and due to forum rules one has to word things carefully here, that they are aware of Christian philosophies that preach indulgence of homosexual sin.

The link I shared shows where those ideas can come from. Using scripture but interpreting it wrongly, those ideas that homosexuality is not a sin put the Christian faithful at odds with God and his truth.

No, homosexuality is no worse a sin than any other. But what is worse in matters relating to that specific sin is the advocacy for its tolerance, and indeed the approval of its open prideful expression within the community of Christ.

As someone observed early on in this thread and paraphrasing now, are there pride parades that celebrate other sins? Murder, adultery, stealing, rape, violence?

Remember that old adage? Even the devil can quote scripture?
My link was shared to show how there is a concerted effort to marginalize homosexual sin. Not expressly set it apart as a greater sin. But to marginalize it or even state outright, using scripture, that it was never a sin in the first place.

When scripture first condemns homosexuality it is inevitable those who wish to renounce God's authority will interpolate scripture so as to refute God's word with what they argue is God's word. In the Greek, in the case of that link.

 

[BryanW92]

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?

It wouldn't do any good. The homosexual believes that his sin is not sin. The APA says that it is normal human sexual behavior. Politicians tell them that its normal to get their vote.

How could you give up a sin that you and the homosexual think is a sin (inappropriate contentography, for example, or fornication for a single person) if he gives up something they refuse to accept as sin. That would be insulting to him (or her). Actually, they probably have a inappropriate contentography problem too and since they are practicing homosexuals, they also fornicate. So those would be non-sins in their mind.

Let's say you want to show support by giving up sins that everyone can agree on, like murder, terrorism, embezzling, or rape. Again, comparing those kind of sins to the "non-sin" of gay sex is just going to insult the homosexual that you are trying to "help".

The fact that we have decided that it is laughable to "pray away the gay" means that there is nothing you or I can do to help them.

But, here is an interesting conundrum: women tell men that if we think lustful thoughts because they are wearing revealing clothing, then we need to "just get over it". Well, men are hard-wired for visual arousal. That's all men--heterosexual and homosexual. So, women who want to dress provocatively but get offended when we stare at their pumped-up, propped-up, and mostly exposed breasts want us to "pray away" our natural impulses. How is that different from "praying away the gay"?? Shouldn't it be easier to pray away an impulse felt by 2-10% of men than one that is shared by nearly 100% of them?

Since the Left expects us to celebrate the "natural sexual impulses" of the homosexuals, then why does it demand that heterosexual men put their "natural sexual impulses" in the closet?

The answer is that the gay agenda of the Left is not about compassion for gays. It is about changing the morality of humanity. It is about getting rid of the idea of sins against God and replacing it with sins against Humanism. When "equality" is achieved for gays, the Left will move on to a new goal, pushing the morality envelope yet again. They will never be satisfied until a majority of Americans have decided that God does not matter and that, even if he is real, he is a weak and impotent god who can't affect the direction of humanity one little bit (anymore, if ever he could).

Every moral standard that is stripped from us makes more people doubt the power and might of God, and pushes us towards the humanistic belief that we are the gods of this world.

 

[theophilus777]

The answer is that the gay agenda of the Left is not about compassion for gays. It is about changing the morality of humanity. It is about getting rid of the idea of sins against God and replacing it with sins against Humanism. When "equality" is achieved for gays, the Left will move on to a new goal, pushing the morality envelope yet again. They will never be satisfied until a majority of Americans have decided that God does not matter and that, even if he is real, he is a weak and impotent god who can't affect the direction of humanity one little bit (anymore, if ever he could).

Every moral standard that is stripped from us makes more people doubt the power and might of God, and pushes us towards the humanistic belief that we are the gods of this world.

Gee Bryan, it sounds as if maybe we should take a stand?

 

[Kyle Arn]

He is right we should take a stand. We should lead this world like Jesus did. Mighty and humble.

 

[Neogaia777]

Now I'm not supporting sin, but I have said this before: Is an act of sin "wrong" for everyone, across the board, under every circumstance?, Or are there exceptions to the normal rule(s) (laws) in which it might be right for (albeit a great, more than likely, "minority" of cases, but a minority that I believe, still can't be ignored)...

So, are their cases or circumstances in which committing a certain sin, might be OK, for some (a minority) and not for others? Like smoking pot for purely medical reasons?, or Embezzling (stealing) from the rich, and giving it to the poor? Now there might be some things we consider "wrong under every circumstance...

Like murder, ("murder" and not killing) we might consider wrong under every circumstance, but what about crimes of passion?, a man walks in on his wife having sex with another man and kills them... Should his sentence be lessened any, under the circumstances? Or what about someone who WAS GUILTY of "murder" and went to prison, and inside, someone "murders" him, is that what we might call "justice" or not?

Or let me put it another way say a older man, a legal adult, rapes a sixteen year old girl, (or boy, I guess) and is guilty of the crime and goes to prison for it, and on the inside, gets force-ably "raped" himself, how "sorry" are we really going to feel for this man? Is that "Justice" or just retribution, or revenge?

Or terrorism, what about the threat, but not the "act" of, or maybe even the "act" of, (after receiving several detailed warnings), (purposely putting someone in fear of you, by threatening when they get out of line, but giving them several warnings and telling them what your going to do, before you actually go through with it), (Now, I'm thinking of a father or mother threatening to spank a child)?

If a child fears their father and it causes him to want to behave and do good, and follow his father's moral principles and examples of personal accountability and integrity and righteousness, is it wrong for a father to have that child in fear of them?, (at least at a young age) Is it wrong? Is it wrong for a father to "play" on that fear every once in a great while, when he feels it's necessary, if their child gets out of line?

I'm gonna use a Star Trek: TNG episode reference here about terrorism, the episode is called "The High Ground" and is about terrorism, here's a short, and did I mention "banned" clip...?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsoPPynIIc

You really should watch the whole episode though, very insightful and very relevant to what's going on in today's world...

This brings up questions about Guerilla warfare as well, what if it's the only (last resort) option to get yourself even heard left...?

Is a certain sin wrong under every circumstance and situation, for everyone, across the board, or not... Could gay people use this as a defense to saying their sin, is not actually sin, in their case?

Now, what I see when I look at this, is that a certain sin, when committed for the purpose of serving a greater good, or a higher or better moral purpose, could be justified, (like Robin Hood, for example)

Now I have a hard time believing that sexual sin, could be committed for any "greater good", or "higher moral purpose", but I'm sure some gays will try to say so...

Those are some of my thoughts,

God Bless!

 

[tremble]

Tremble, I think you have a good heart here, but I don't think those actions would achieve the stated goal.

Would you be willing to rephrase your comment to, "Those actions are unlikely to achieve the stated goal in many cases"? It sounds awfully defeatist to be so definite that our efforts to help homosexuals deal with their issues will surely fail.

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.

Ok, so then we focus on homosexuals who do feel they should be making some efforts to move closer to God. Just because there are so many out there who would refuse our offers of assistance does not mean they all will. We also need to have the right attitude. If we take the position that there are none out there who would even want our help, then all we've really done is created a convenient doctrine for excusing ourselves from the work it'd take to support them in their efforts if they did want to move closer to God.

Also, saying that, "sanctification is worth the cost" is technically true, but there are many examples of "support groups" out there for people struggling with myriad of problems. I believe it's most common in substance abuse cases, like alcoholics anonymous. They strongly advocate support buddies because the evidence shows that people are more likely to overcome their problems when they know they have support. Imagine if they did away with the buddy system, proclaiming that sanctification is worth the it's own cost. Do you think that would produce better results for alcoholics than the buddy system does?

Before they do, we as Christians have no business trying to impose our standards upon them.

I'm not sure why this misunderstanding happened. Did I really give the impression that we should force our help on to homosexuals? I don't think I ever talked about imposing standards onto them. Actually, I was striving quite hard to say the opposite. I was talking about offering support. Obviously, if people do not want our help, then we move on until we find those who do.

 

[Alithis]

Again tremble ...there is no such thing as a homosexual. There are people... and the acts people do.
Special considerations or consolation cannot be afforded any particular sin.
It is important we do not get sucked in to all the ambiguous argument which is devised for no other reason then an attempt to self justify sin.

 

[tremble]

Special considerations or consolation cannot be afforded any particular sin.
It is important we do not get sucked in to all the ambiguous argument which is devised for no other reason then an attempt to self justify sin.

Michael, based on what I said, did you really get the impression that I was attempting to help gay people justify sexual immorality? Just yesterday another person on this thread suggested I was trying to force something onto homosexuals which they do not want, though I never said any such thing.

It's not clear to me why these misunderstandings keep happening, though I have a suspicion.

I recently watched a horror movie with some friends about a possessed mirror. At some point, two of the characters grabbed golf clubs, intent on smashing it. However, after taking several swings they suddenly saw that they had each been hitting the wall just beside the mirror without realizing it.

Turns out, the mirror was able to warp reality around it so that even when people thought they were smashing the mirror, it was just illusion; the mirror was adept at deflection as a means of protecting itself.***

Could these misunderstandings be something similar? I made a fairly radical suggestion and people respond as though I said something opposite to what I actually said. Here I am, taking a swing at the mirror only to find my club suddenly stuck in the wall just beside it.

But, maybe it's nothing like that in this case. Misunderstandings happen all the time. I'll clarify my thoughts again and see what happens.

On this thread there have been a lot of good arguments for why homosexuals themselves are not the problem, but rather, it is the sexual immorality they engage in which is the problem, much like fornication amongst heterosexuals. Except, the heterosexuals have an option which the gay person does not; marriage.

Even with marriage, homosexual activity is still considered wrong because the marriage itself is not recognized by God (i.e. man for woman and woman for man).

So, despite all their feelings, emotions, and desires, the gay person is left with nothing but masturbation or to train themselves to be interested in the opposite sex. At least with masturbation they've got an outlet for physical desires but imagine what it'd be like if you were told that you cannot have a love life? You cannot touch the person you love. You cannot make your relationship legal. You cannot have that life together.

It's the truth and we should be willing to speak it boldly, but can you imagine what cold comfort it must be to have a couple bible verses tossed in your lap as proof that your romantic interests are gone for the rest of your life?

There are some people out there with enough sincerity to accept the truth just because it's the truth, no matter how inconvenient or how much it hurts. I wish we were all like that. But most of us have little of that quality. We struggle and fight. We are afraid and reactionary.

For example, how many people on this forum have heard me promoting Jesus' teachings on forsaking private ownership of material possessions and quitting our jobs working for money so that we can start new jobs working for God's kingdom of love? It's a significant part of the Kingdom of Heaven.

But, what are the most common responses to this teaching? "Jesus didn't mean it that way", "we can't work our way to Heaven", "I don't have the faith for that", "that was for another time" etc. There is a whole listof arguments like this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why? Isn't it because we are afraid? We don't want to let go of our stuff. We don't want to let go of our "job security". We don't want our whole life to be turned upside down, possibly ostracized by our church, our friends, or our family as crazy extremists. We don't want to let go of the respectability that comes with conforming to the economic values of this world. That worldly system is what provides for us. The system gives us work, food, clothing and security. How can we possibly turn our backs on that? It would be like despising the hand that feeds us and we would surely die if we were to take Jesus at his word and his example. (Matthew 6:24-34)

We cannot let go; it's too much to ask of us...

And yet, we see no problem, no contradiction in telling the gay person to let go, "because the Bible says so".

Is this why the misunderstandings are happening? Am I too close to hitting the mirror?

I am suggesting that if Christians get serious about making our own sacrifices we could come to be seen as an example for other people who have issues they need to let go of, too. We could become leaders in the arena of tough choices and sacrifices.




***( If the mirror was a Christian, and obedience to the teachings of Jesus the golf club, the mirror would probably start babbling about the trinity, the sabbath day, working your way to Heaven or any number of other theological issues. LOL)

 

[RBPerry]

It seems to me the homosexuals are trolling the Christian forums looking for debates that will justify their hate arguments, or force acceptance on what we know to be sinful. Continuing to debate the issue just seems to add fuel to the fire. Why not just ignore the subject and refuse to respond. We are not going to change their beliefs, nor are they ours. So what is the point? Each side had argued their beliefs and it is getting no where. Lets face it, in the end God will sort it out.

 

[Neogaia777]

Again tremble ...there is no such thing as a homosexual. There are people... and the acts people do.
Special considerations or consolation cannot be afforded any particular sin.
It is important we do not get sucked in to all the ambiguous argument which is devised for no other reason then an attempt to self justify sin.

Was Robin Hood justified (in your opinion)?

 

[Alithis]

Umm we follow the lord Jesus .... I note he did not Rob the rich to give to the poor but layed his life down ,and being risen again from the dead has made a way for All to be reconciled to the father.
-As many as believe.

 

[Alithis]

The op asks..is being gay a sin. It is an incorrect question.
There is not a third species upon the earth .we do have man woman and gay.we have people and the things people do.
A correct question is. Is sexual immorality a sin ?yes... in every form with same sex and sodomy singled out and declared by God to be abhorrent .

However we will not change the world .God has declared it is wicked and it is destined for judgment and destruction.the error some make is in thinking we can change the world and make it some utopia in the present age.its not going to happen.
But.. we have GOOD NEWS.. God has made a way for anyone to be exempt from the judgment to come through his word spoken forth who became flesh and he lay down his life for us ,that whosoever believes in him puts their faith in him and follows him,will not perish but have everlasting life.
It is not our place to change the world but rather to show it in word and deed
The way out of sin and death in the lord Jesus.

 

[tremble]

The op asks..is being gay a sin. It is an incorrect question.

Based on your other comments about sexual immorality, it's not an incorrect question. Feeling attraction to the same sex is not a sin just as an unmarried heterosexual person feeling attracted to someone is not a sin. It is acting on that attraction (or giving in to lust) which is the sin.

There is not a third species upon the earth .we do have man woman and gay.we have people and the things people do.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that homosexuals are a separate species (not that I've seen). The words let me know we are talking about a person who has a particular sexual/emotional preference.

A correct question is. Is sexual immorality a sin ?yes... in every form with same sex and sodomy singled out and declared by God to be abhorrent .

I'm not sure what you mean by "singled out". Both adultery and fornication are addressed specifically, as well, more so than homosexuality is. Actually, spiritual adultery is referred to a lot more than any physical immoral act is.

The OT is rife with examples of the children of Israel committing spiritual adultery by either disregarding what God wanted them to do in preference for their own desires or by going off after other "gods".

The NT follows a similar theme except it narrows the adultery down to people trusting in the worldly system (i.e. using our time to work for money rather than God's kingdom of love) or the cares of this world. This is further punctuated by comparing followers of Jesus to a "bride" and followers of the worldly system of wages to a prostitute named "Babylon". The bride is loyal and faithful to the groom. She gives her love freely. The prostitute promises love only in exchange for wages.

However we will not change the world .God has declared it is wicked and it is destined for judgment and destruction

Maybe so, but what about changing people? Sure, we cannot force them to change, but then again who is talking about force? We can try to influence people or encourage them to change.

Don't feel discouraged, Michael! The world may be lost, but so what? Let's focus on changing hearts. ^.^

That's why I was suggesting that it may be good for Christians to stop condemning homosexuality in general and start taking a more active role in encouraging gays to consider celibacy as a reasonable option to moving closer to God.

Much like alcoholics anonymous utilizes a buddy system for helping alcoholics overcome their problems, we could also become buddies encouraging them to abstain "one day at a time".

Of course, it'd be easier if we had something more to offer them than church attendance. That's where I see the beauty of the early church's way of life, where they lived communally, sharing all things in common and working for love full time.

That kind of lifestyle will bring meaning and joy to life and is a much better substitute for aspiring celibate gays than the usual religious tradition offered up in most churches these days.

 

[Neogaia777]

Umm we follow the lord Jesus .... I note he did not Rob the rich to give to the poor but layed his life down ,and being risen again from the dead has made a way for All to be reconciled to the father.
-As many as believe.

Yeah, but did Jesus rob the enemy? (What bout the "Thief in the night" reference) Kinda implies Jesus stole or does steal something (maybe us from the enemy?)

God Bless!

 

[tremble]

Yeah, but did Jesus rob the enemy? (What bout the "Thief in the night" reference) Kinda implies Jesus stole or does steal something (maybe us from the enemy?)

God Bless!

lol nice try Neo! ^.^

 

[Lollerskates]

Homosexuality is an insipid lie from the enemy. It is an illusion (GRANTED: I mean the mentality that one is 100% "frozen into" to same-sex attraction.)

I don't understand why the OP is asking where in the new testament does it forbid homosexuality when God is the same God, is Christ, is the Son of God. The "New Covenant," aka "New Testament" is the same God speaking as the God of Moses, and Abraham. So, if He said it was wrong before, He doesn't back slide, and renege on His commandments. Christ would not be Christ if He contradicted the "old testament" God. Therefore, it matters not whether it is said in the "Old Covenant/Testament" or "New Covenant/Testament" that it is wrong.

 

[tremble]

I don't understand why the OP is asking where in the new testament does it forbid homosexuality

The OP didn't ask where the new testament forbids homosexuality. It asks where the NT does it say that being gay is wrong. I don't know, maybe the two questions are the same in the OP's mind.

But for me, the phrase "Forbids homosexuality" is grammatically confusing. Homosexuality is a noun, but it's being used in a way that implies it's a verb. You can't forbid something if it doesn't do something which needs forbidding. So it sounds like, based on the context, you're talking about gay sex rather than being gay in general.

The words "homosexual" and "gay" are adjectives. They describe a state of being or quality of something. The Bible does not address the issues which make a person feel attracted to the same sex, but rather what happens when they act on those feelings.

So, I'd hesitate to say that just feeling attraction for the same sex is wrong but definitely the physical expression of same-sex relationship is wrong.

 

[Lollerskates]

Gay means happy. Homosexuality is sex with the same sex.