Is homosexuality a sin?

[JediMobius]

It may very well say so explicitly but what is the text ACTUALLY referring to? It's all well and good to grab a text here and a text there but without the WHOLE set of circumstances explained surrounding the who and the what and the why of the text what are we to make of it? Was Paul referring to Kevin and John, for instance, having sex in the local park? Or how about Darren and Tony who were caught in the act under the bleechers? Or, how about . . .

Please explain the entire scenario to us instead of grabbing at bits and pieces that don't make any sense.

Or, read my post, (where this progression started) and read the surrounding chapter/book/testament/bible until you're satisfied you have it in context. The commentary is there to aid exegesis, and the chapter:verse has been cited.

So, Sex is just for reproduction ...right? Casual or recreational heterosexual sex is a sin ...is that what you're saying?

That's quite the bait. No, sex is not just for reproduction, obviously. Still, the reproduction aspect should make it glaringly obvious who's supposed to have sex with who, as far as gender's go. I imagine the principle reason homosexual sex is detestable to God is that it takes the good he created and perverts it. For that matter, sodomy between a man and wife is doing the same. God made woman for man for the two parts to be one whole. Whether you believe God actually took Adam's rib and made a woman out of it, that point remains the same, and Jesus attests to that truth in Matthew 19:5.

And only gay men lust ...right? Furthermore, a committed relationship with a partner by either heterosexual or homosexual can hardly be construed as 'lust' ...now can it? Do you really know what the texts you raise are talking about?

The topic reads "Is homosexuality a sin?" without any comparison to other sins. A "committed relationship" can be construed any way one wishes to construe it. Lust is what it is, a fleshly, sexual desire. I don't care if a heterosexual couple's been married for decades, it could be based on lust with no regard for any other aspect of the relationship than sex and the marriage could end the next day. If you think it says something different, show your evidence. Otherwise, your argument is hot air.

Well, I think you need to explain it since you brought it up. Are you sure this is not describing pagan temple rituals involving heterosexual men who would normally have 'natural' relations with a woman? Again, please give us a complete rundown on what Paul is addressing so that we can all be informed appropriately as to what was actually going on.

Once again, read my post.

Oh, one more thing. Paul is not God. He was a sinful mortal, just like the rest of us.

Who suggested that? Are you unaware of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth which resides in all born-again believers?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not only is time relative, time is God's creation - I'm pretty sure he can set the celestial bodies in motion how he sees fit. More than once. Still, the apparent meaning of each day of creation is God's day, not earth's. I mean, there was no sun shining on the earth's rotation on the first day - no 24 hour cycle. We don't know how long God's day really is; his sabbath might have lasted all of Adam's life, or longer. At the very least, I think it's safe to say God created the universe in less time than the great minds of man would say it must have taken. (Not that if it took a hundred billion years, any other entity could have done it.) God's mysterious, and humanity is full of itself.

We don't know what the earth was like before the flood, but it was different, perhaps fundamentally.

Now, what's the problem with the literal account of the flood? How else was God supposed to get rid of the Nephilim? (and Lilith? lol)

There is, of course, inherent in the word 'literal' the problem of its meaning. The first meaning being 'not figurative or metaphorical', which sometimes the bible isn't, obviously doesn't allow for the stories and teachings that are. However, more appropriately, the 2nd and 3rd meanings are 'following the original closely' and 'true to fact', the latter in this case more like true to the spiritual facts. Everything in the bible should be found true when held in its context, assuming divine inspiration.

I prefer to see it this way: man has long faced mysteries that he has struggled to understand. The two stories of creation in Genesis (I and II) are man's attempt to explain his existence to himself. Naturally, man used what little understanding he already had to formulate a story about how the world came to be. Later generations, however, took it literally. They did not see it as a creative exercise of their ancestor's minds, but as solid truth.

As for cultural bias, I'd like to see any instances you have in mind. One example contrary to the notion, the law given to Moses started with laws concerning fair treatment of slaves. That was unheard of at the time. I'm sure the Israelites would much rather have had a taste of how their Egyptian masters enjoyed slavery, instead of the concessions the law gave.

Cultural bias against homosexuals is well observed in countless (if not all) of the world's many cultures. Biases against women too are noted, and indeed mentioned in some parts of Scripture. So yes, the authors were not immune from these prejudices, and it's more than likely that some of these prejudices were poured into their works - works that we later incorporated into the Bible.

 

[JediMobius]

I prefer to see it this way: man has long faced mysteries that he has struggled to understand. The two stories of creation in Genesis (I and II) are man's attempt to explain his existence to himself. Naturally, man used what little understanding he already had to formulate a story about how the world came to be. Later generations, however, took it literally. They did not see it as a creative exercise of their ancestor's minds, but as solid truth.

So you see it how you wish to see it, how it fits into your world-view? Personally, I think the creation story is a little too detail oriented to ever have been presented as a myth by its writer - presumably Moses, who God talked to on a regular basis. Face to face. I'm always confused that the apparently sole alternative to any kind of literal interpretation is that it's just a story, which has the side-effect of pigeon-holing any spiritual truth God means to convey to his people through such scripture. Either God is a liar, or the bible is cohesive. From a Christian standpoint, prophecy doesn't mean much if God's Spirit was not actually poured out on his servants who wrote scripture. And these were not simply individuals with their own agendas, or else the texts would not be so much in agreement with each other throughout the span of time, and prophecy would not have lined up so well that Christ would fulfill so much of it when he lived, died, and was resurrected. Wouldn't the son of God have mentioned something about the Jewish scripture if parts of it weren't true?

Go here: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture Scroll down just a little bit to "Christ's Use of Scripture" and it's pretty plain that any Christian is left with the choice to either treat scripture as Jesus Christ did (in order to be like Christ) or reject the authority Jesus held scripture to, but that would in effect reject the Lord himself.

Cultural bias against homosexuals is well observed in countless (if not all) of the world's many cultures. Biases against women too are noted, and indeed mentioned in some parts of Scripture. So yes, the authors were not immune from these prejudices, and it's more than likely that some of these prejudices were poured into their works - works that we later incorporated into the Bible.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of counting, actually. If you look at the history, many influential cultures have records of accepted homosexual practices. Whatever cultural bias there was, if you think the bible is not divinely inspired, you practice a strange Christianity indeed. If the bible is not spiritual truth, what kind of guide would it make? Not a very effective one. So why would an omnipotent God allow egregious bias into the teachings his children would learn from for generations?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you see it how you wish to see it, how it fits into your world-view? Personally, I think the creation story is a little too detail oriented to ever have been presented as a myth by its writer - presumably Moses, who God talked to on a regular basis. Face to face. I'm always confused that the apparently sole alternative to any kind of literal interpretation is that it's just a story, which has the side-effect of pigeon-holing any spiritual truth God means to convey to his people through such scripture. Either God is a liar, or the bible is cohesive. From a Christian standpoint, prophecy doesn't mean much if God's Spirit was not actually poured out on his servants who wrote scripture. And these were not simply individuals with their own agendas, or else the texts would not be so much in agreement with each other throughout the span of time, and prophecy would not have lined up so well that Christ would fulfill so much of it when he lived, died, and was resurrected. Wouldn't the son of God have mentioned something about the Jewish scripture if parts of it weren't true?

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you say 'Either God is a liar or the Bible is cohesive.' In parts, in particular prophecy concerning Christ, the Bible is quite cohesive. On other matters however, it is not. It even has two, not one, creation stories - that's hardly cohesive. What's more, there are countless tomes and writings which have been excluded from what we call 'the Bible'. These exclusions have been at man's discretion, not God's.

Go here: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture Scroll down just a little bit to "Christ's Use of Scripture" and it's pretty plain that any Christian is left with the choice to either treat scripture as Jesus Christ did (in order to be like Christ) or reject the authority Jesus held scripture to, but that would in effect reject the Lord himself.

Once again, same false dichotomy underpinned by the idea that there is, and can only be, one interpretation to Scripture.

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of counting, actually. If you look at the history, many influential cultures have records of accepted homosexual practices. Whatever cultural bias there was, if you think the bible is not divinely inspired, you practice a strange Christianity indeed. If the bible is not spiritual truth, what kind of guide would it make? Not a very effective one. So why would an omnipotent God allow egregious bias into the teachings his children would learn from for generations?

And yet commonly prejudices have still made their way into the Bible. Prejudices against women and homosexuals being the case in point.

 

[JediMobius]

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy when you say 'Either God is a liar or the Bible is cohesive.' In parts, in particular prophecy concerning Christ, the Bible is quite cohesive. On other matters however, it is not. It even has two, not one, creation stories - that's hardly cohesive. What's more, there are countless tomes and writings which have been excluded from what we call 'the Bible'. These exclusions have been at man's discretion, not God's.

The idea of two creation stories is a modern scholar notion, which I happen to disagree with. Tradition makes more sense - that it's one account. It's not the only instance in the bible of an overview followed by details - of a chronology followed by a 'flashback' of sorts. After the 7nth day, we have details that weren't necessary or appropriate for the telling of the six days of creation in chapter one. Then, once Adam is breathing and the garden in place, God created [more] animals from the dust rather than just tell Adam he created it all.

Once again, same false dichotomy underpinned by the idea that there is, and can only be, one interpretation to Scripture.

Multiple interpretations are for art. The truth of God, salvation, eternal life, of all that God is and has said, is not relative. Or is the mind of God somehow supposed to be subject to our whims and musings? To what one interpretation are you referring? The word of God speaks for itself. Whatever bias we have causes wrong interpretation. To understand what God's word says simply requires study, reflection, and the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

Which of the verses on this page is forced into an interpretation that doesn't fit? Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture Assuming Christ thought everything about scripture which his words suggest, how many interpretations should a given passage in the bible have? Certainly, there are passages with more than one meaning, but these meanings are layers of wisdom, truth, and exhortation which coexist.

And yet commonly prejudices have still made their way into the Bible. Prejudices against women and homosexuals being the case in point.

Historically, homosexuality has been something people simply decided to do (for the thrill, pleasure...) Homosexuals can choose to stop having sex at any time. Without definitive proof otherwise, it's a choice which often becomes an addiction. I don't buy the prejudice bit. You can't change your skin color, origin of birth, physical qualities, gender or age, but you can always choose your own actions.

Now, just what do you mean that prejudice against women has made its way into the bible?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The idea of two creation stories is a modern scholar notion, which I happen to disagree with. Tradition makes more sense - that it's one account. It's not the only instance in the bible of an overview followed by details - of a chronology followed by a 'flashback' of sorts. After the 7nth day, we have details that weren't necessary or appropriate for the telling of the six days of creation in chapter one. Then, once Adam is breathing and the garden in place, God created [more] animals from the dust rather than just tell Adam he created it all.

It is none-the-less not very cohesive. Anyone taking Creative Writing 101 would be told not to do that... at least not if they wanted to be telling a single story. It becomes quite apparent though that it is not a single story, for in one version, man and woman (they are not named) are created co-equally in the image of God, whereas in the other they both named and created in a particular order (no doubt the author had 'order of importance' in mind). Scholars since then have drawn two different meanings essentially from the same Scripture: one is that man and woman are equal, having both been created equally. The other is that man is superior and woman is merely a 'help-mate'. None of this helps to create a cohesive plot.

Multiple interpretations are for art. The truth of God, salvation, eternal life, of all that God is and has said, is not relative. Or is the mind of God somehow supposed to be subject to our whims and musings? To what one interpretation are you referring? The word of God speaks for itself. Whatever bias we have causes wrong interpretation. To understand what God's word says simply requires study, reflection, and the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

Then religion must indeed be an art for look how many denominations there are... enough to conclude that multiple interpretations must be the norm.

Historically, homosexuality has been something people simply decided to do (for the thrill, pleasure...) Homosexuals can choose to stop having sex at any time. Without definitive proof otherwise, it's a choice which often becomes an addiction. I don't buy the prejudice bit. You can't change your skin color, origin of birth, physical qualities, gender or age, but you can always choose your own actions.

Ah... the myth that sexual orientation is purely a choice.

Now, just what do you mean that prejudice against women has made its way into the bible?

It depends on whether the prejudice comes from our interpretation of the Bible or whether the prejudice was implemented by the author. And of course that would depend on the verse under assessment.

 

[OllieFranz]

You can't really take it much less than literal in the romans quote. how else are we supposed to take it when it says so explicitly?



natural use of women - sex for reproduction,
lust - no definition needed.
men with men = 2 men
2 Men +lust + unnatural use of what you would use a woman for = 2 men having sex.... don't see how else it could really be explained

Except that Plato explicitly states that the sin (that which is "para physis") that he was describing is "Passion," not "homsexuality." The same-sex aspect was part of an ethnic joke.

And when Paul adapted this passage for his letter, he emphasized the aspects of Passion, and downplayed the "homosexuality."

 

[JediMobius]

It is none-the-less not very cohesive. Anyone taking Creative Writing 101 would be told not to do that... at least not if they wanted to be telling a single story. It becomes quite apparent though that it is not a single story, for in one version, man and woman (they are not named) are created co-equally in the image of God, whereas in the other they both named and created in a particular order (no doubt the author had 'order of importance' in mind). Scholars since then have drawn two different meanings essentially from the same Scripture: one is that man and woman are equal, having both been created equally. The other is that man is superior and woman is merely a 'help-mate'. None of this helps to create a cohesive plot.

That's highly incongruous. Scripture isn't going to follow the rules of creative writing; it's not creative writing! Haven't you noticed that when you say "no doubt the author had 'order of importance' in mind" you're adding your own bias to your interpretation? Get help from the Holy Spirit, or scripture will be empty for you!

Then religion must indeed be an art for look how many denominations there are... enough to conclude that multiple interpretations must be the norm.

Those denominations are the direct result of discord, a symptom of wrong interpretation; that is, interpretation without the mind of Christ - the Holy Spirit.

Ah... the myth that sexual orientation is purely a choice.

Hooray for pure assertion? I counter that sexual orientation as anything other than choice is a myth.

It depends on whether the prejudice comes from our interpretation of the Bible or whether the prejudice was implemented by the author. And of course that would depend on the verse under assessment.

So, what? Someone told you the bible is prejudiced toward women and you're just going with it? Are you resigned to accept the first acceptable answer as the truth?

 

[JediMobius]

Except that Plato explicitly states that the sin (that which is "para physis") that he was describing is "Passion," not "homsexuality." The same-sex aspect was part of an ethnic joke.

And when Paul adapted this passage for his letter, he emphasized the aspects of Passion, and downplayed the "homosexuality."

What are you talking about?

 

[lordworshipper]

Nowhere does the Bible say that attraction to the same sex is a sin. Trust me, I read the Bible everyday, read it many times over, and am still doing such. What the Bible says is that not homosexuality (attraction to the same sex), but homosexual intercourse is a sin/abomination to he lord.

Trust me, God wouldn't punish us for something we have no control over. He knows we have temptations, we're fallen creatures.

Btw, there is a difference between sexuality and sex, the difference is one is sexual attraction and the other sexual acts. I am willing to be proven wrong, all you need is one verse saying I am. God doesn't like the sins people do, he don't punish us for what the devil puts in our minds, nor what falls into our minds elsewise, as long as we fight off sin, that's all that matters.

 

[Zaac]

Nowhere does the Bible say that attraction to the same sex is a sin.

That would be correct.

What the Bible says is that not homosexuality (attraction to the same sex), but homosexual intercourse is a sin/abomination to he lord.

Also correct.

God says that SPECIFIC ACTS are sinful. If attraction is sinful, then it would have been pointed out as sinful across the board(homosexual and heterosexual).

Most boys are attracted to boys and girls to girls when they are young. That's why most of a little boys friends are boys and the little girls have little girls as friends. And each thinks the other is YUCKY!


Now I say attraction to mean that you are drawn to something in the other person's personality that you like or have in common.

Sexual , lustful attraction is something else all together.

But having a simple "I like you " attraction because of something in your personality is how we make FRIENDSHIPS.

 

[selfinflikted]

That's highly incongruous. Scripture isn't going to follow the rules of creative writing; it's not creative writing! Haven't you noticed that when you say "no doubt the author had 'order of importance' in mind" you're adding your own bias to your interpretation? Get help from the Holy Spirit, or scripture will be empty for you!

That's a cop-out. The scriptures as you know them were put together by a council of men, not god. They voted on which texts to include and exclude.

Those denominations are the direct result of discord, a symptom of wrong interpretation; that is, interpretation without the mind of Christ - the Holy Spirit.

So which denomination is right? Which one has the holy spirit?

Hooray for pure assertion? I counter that sexual orientation as anything other than choice is a myth.

Sexual orientation, for most people, is not a choice. Period.

So, what? Someone told you the bible is prejudiced toward women and you're just going with it? Are you resigned to accept the first acceptable answer as the truth?

Women were personal property in biblical times. There's no disputing that.

 

[selfinflikted]

That would be correct.
But having a simple "I like you " attraction because of something in your personality is how we make FRIENDSHIPS.

Are you saying that homosexual relationships are nothing more than friendships?

 

[Zaac]

Are you saying that homosexual relationships are nothing more than friendships?

Nope. If they were nothing more than friendships, there would be no prohibition against the friendships.

The problem with homosexual "relationships" is the SEX. If you're not having sex and lusting after each other, your friendship is fine.

 

[selfinflikted]

Nope. If they were nothing more than friendships, there would be no prohibition against the friendships.

The problem with homosexual "relationships" is the SEX. If you're not having sex and lusting after each other, your friendship is fine.

So, then, what are homosexuals to do?

 

[Zaac]

So, then, what are homosexuals to do?

To do? Concerning what?

 

[selfinflikted]

To do? Concerning what?

Sex. Try to live a life of celibacy? Fake it and enter into a heterosexual relationship, like so many have? What's the "way out"?

 

[Zaac]

Sex. Try to live a life of celibacy?

If you are a Christian, you are to do the same thing that God expects of every unmarried person: abstain and flee sexual immorality.

Fake it and enter into a heterosexual relationship, like so many have? What's the "way out"?

Laying down everything that we have made gods in our lives and following Christ.

If something causes you to continuously be disobedient to what God says, it is because it is an idol in your life witha place ahead of the One TRUE GOD.

I have said it before. But it would be a powerful testimony for any homosexual to say that he loves Jesus Christ so much that he was willing to lay down something that would seemingly be such an important part of who he taught he was in order to follow Christ and be a right witness for Him.

 

[selfinflikted]

If you are a Christian, you are to do the same thing that God expects of every unmarried person: abstain and flee sexual immorality.




Laying down everything that we have made gods in our lives and following Christ.

If something causes you to continuously be disobedient to what God says, it is because it is an idol in your life witha place ahead of the One TRUE GOD.

I have said it before. But it would be a powerful testimony for any homosexual to say that he loves Jesus Christ so much that he was willing to lay down something that would seemingly be such an important part of who he taught he was in order to follow Christ and be a right witness for Him.

Assuming for the moment I was a Christian, I just do not think I could do that. Also, I would think that would be a completely unfair thing for god to "ask" of someone.

 

[Zaac]

Assuming for the moment I was a Christian, I just do not think I could do that.

I know self. It's a tough thing to do. It's tought to abstain from sex period especially in today's bombardment of sex in everything. I have some friends who have done just that. I won't say that there haven't been challenges. But I'm telling you that it is powerful to meet someone who is willing to lay down what so many gay people and people period feel is such a defining part of how they identify to the world to follow Christ completely.

Also, I would think that would be a completely unfair thing for god to "ask" of someone

Why? He demands the same thing of heterosexuals. Ultimately, the homosexual sinner who is a Christian has to recognize that such a decision is about the place God will have in his life. If such a person then chooses to live in unrepentant sin regardless of what God says, then he should seriously question whether he is truly a follower of Jesus Christ.

At the very least, a follower of Jesus Christ should be able to call truth that which God gives in His word, whether or not we agree with it or think it fair.

It is ALWAYS about Him and Who He is. Our wants and desires cannot be the utmost.