Is homosexuality a sin?

[Belk]

There are a "lot" of openly alcoholic ministers but that doesn't change the fact that being drunk is sinful.

Is having the genes for being prone to alcoholism a sin? If not then I fail to see how this is relevant. The question was not are people who engage in homosexual sex sinning, it was is being a homosexual a sin. You can be a homosexual without ever having sex.

 

[Belk]

Sexual preference is what it is. . . . can't be sinful, could be a mental illness until homosexuals got it taken off the books (actually just one book, the DSM). in this modern era where homosexuality is no longer listed among the neurosis, homosexuality hasn't changed in its causes and nature.

Do you know why it was listed to begin with?

 

[Belk]

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia check it out.

What position of his opponents did he misrepresent?

 

[LittleNipper]

Is having the genes for being prone to alcoholism a sin? If not then I fail to see how this is relevant. The question was not are people who engage in homosexual sex sinning, it was is being a homosexual a sin. You can be a homosexual without ever having sex.

Having the genetic disposition is a result of Adam's sin. Giving into the inclination is a sin. To recognize that one has a particular inclination and turn it over to CHRIST to save one from sin is what Christianity is all about. It isn't about being perfect. It is about seeing one's self as sinful and worthy of punishment and asking GOD to save one's soul.

 

[Macx]

Granted the Engrish (yes that is intentional) is a little difficult to read, but

Interesting, that. Neuroses are defined by this board, yet if the board claims to have been mistaken, it can then still classify as a disorder?

Let's the board made the holding of religion a neurotic disorder. Given the definition of neurosis, this could be done, technically

That'd be making up a ficticious persona (an APA which holds that "holding of religion a neurotic disorder")

with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

 

[Macx]

Do you know why it was listed to begin with?

Because it is a mental illness.

 

[Belk]

Having the genetic disposition is a result of Adam's sin. Giving into the inclination is a sin. To recognize that one has a particular inclination and turn it over to CHRIST to save one from sin is what Christianity is all about. It isn't about being perfect. It is about seeing one's self as sinful and worthy of punishment and asking GOD to save one's soul.

All well and good. So back to the OP question. Is being a homosexual a sin?

 

[BigBadWlf]

it may be more user friendly now that it's been "fixed", but my post was more accurate before.

the most accurate fix would be:
according to my personal impetration of the Bible, yes.

 

[Belk]

Because it is a mental illness.

No actually, it is because of WWII. In WWII being gay in the armed forces was a court martial offense. Towards the later years of the war doctors would describe it as an illness in order to try to keep gays who served out of the stockade for 25 years.

 

[_JJM]

All well and good. So back to the OP question. Is being a homosexual a sin?

Of course it is. Why do we need to keep stating the obvious?

 

[Archer93]

Granted the Engrish (yes that is intentional) is a little difficult to read, but That'd be making up a ficticious persona (an APA which holds that "holding of religion a neurotic disorder")

FennytheFox did not criticize the decisions of the possible APA Board, he simply presented a scenario in which the Board considers religion to be a neurosis.
As such, it was a thought experiment, not a strawman.

 

[Belk]

Granted the Engrish (yes that is intentional) is a little difficult to read, but That'd be making up a ficticious persona (an APA which holds that "holding of religion a neurotic disorder")

Making up a theoretical situation is not misrepresenting your position.

 

[mwood30]

Yes, it is sin. The openly homosexual "church leaders" have distorted and ignored scriptures that say so to suit their own desires in life, not that of the God of the Bible.

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Just for argument's sake, let's say I believe your quote of Romans 1:24-27 is about homosexuality in general, and not about heterosexual men who were so sex crazed they began desiring anything that moved. Let's say this passage about first century Roman heterosexual men who were having thousands of sex partners a year, somehow applies to homosexuality in general.

So if I overlook the context to agree with you, what's the point of the quote? The passage says these people received the full penalty within themselves; within their bodies.

So now I have to say that a passage about lascivious first century heterosexual men receiving in their bodies the full penalty for their licentiousness somehow says modern gays will pay a spiritual penalty? Huh? Really?

This is the point of the passage?

 

[BigBadWlf]

If you use God's Word as the authority - YES, it's a sin.

according to your personal impetration of the Bible

====================

Genesis 18:19-23
[/quote] Nothing here about homosexuality

Genesis 19:4-7

Nothing here about homosexuality, inhospitality sure, something that God reiterates time and time again through the bible
"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. They were haughty and did hateful things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Ezekiel 16: 49-50

Leviticus 18:22-25

Leviticus 20:13

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who don’t follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.

First – we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20

A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge (yakhasey). However the word for sex / carnal knowledge (yakhasey) is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) as in have carnal knowledge of/with but there is a problem with that translation in that there is nothing to support the contention that it is an act of consent. Shakab is used 52 times elsewhere in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Romans 1:22-28

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way.

Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

Further…

To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other. He points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates the commandment of Jesus in his own words: "God will give to each person according to what he has done." Romans 2:6

1 Corinthians 6:9

This position is based on the mangled translation of an obscure Greek word arsenokoites to mean homosexual. It is claimed time and again by those seeking to justify personal prejudice that the word obviously means homosexual, but there is no evidence to support this assumption.

We can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard and well known term at the time for males who had sex with males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who were homosexual.

For most of the history of Christianity arsenokoites was translated to mean masturbation, the most recent bible to make this translation was 1968. At other times the word was translated to mean people lacking a high moral standard, or men who sexually abuse children. It is only in the last fifty years or so that a shift in the translation of this word to mean homosexual has been seen. In fact no bible included the word homosexual prior to 1984. Each translation seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves at that moment and makes use of this vere to condemn it.

The defense for claiming that arsenokoites means homosexual is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is difficult no matter what language one uses and in this case is compounded by the fact that the word is from a dead language. One can’t just define a compound word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the meaning of understand has anything to do with standing or being under anything and never has had anything to do with standing under something. This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "kidnap" to mean to put a child to bed for a siesta. Therefore all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy or even the whole bed making industry.

consider compound words that have koites as their suffix:
doulokoites dealer in slaves
duterokoite to have a bed partner (gender not specified)
parakoitEs bedfellow, (specifically ones spouse)
polukoitos promiscuity
klepsikoites employing a prostitute
hemerokoites sleeping by day
khamakoites sleeping on the ground
enookoites with ears large enough to sleep in (not kidding)
borborokoitEs a kind of frog

Continued>

 

[BigBadWlf]

Some claim that Paul coined this word by combining two words from the Septuagint because his audience would have no reference or understanding of homosexuality. The claim is a joke among linguists and etylogists. The ancient Greeks clearly understood the concept and didn’t have to make up words to discuss it because they already had the word paiderasste.

Some try to continue to justify the translation as justification for their own personal prejudice by trying to claim (without support) that Paul was playing a mix and match word game by using words from the Septuagint.

The phrase in the Septuagint is: Kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos."

If the Septuagint had wanted to say "one shall not lie with a man/male as with a woman/female" it would have been written either "Kai meta andros ou koimethese hos meta thelus"

Broken down the Septuagint translation says:
The greek "Kai" is "and", and "meta" is roughly "with".

"arsenos" means "male" (as opposed to "man" ["andros"]). An interesting choice of wording to say the least In Hebrew "human"/"teracotta"(colour) is "adama". And man is "ish"/"esh"; "ishah" is "woman". But the word translated as "man" in leviticus18:22 is actually "zakar", which is a very different word entirely. "zakar" elsewhere is only used to refer to men who are somehow sanctified. More on that in a moment.

"koimethese" roughly means "the same as".

koiten translates as "marriage bed"

"koite gynaikos" "specifically means a woman’s marriage bed. Idiomatically it refers to "wife", as in "my woman" therefore "koite gynaikos" translates to ‘the wife’s bed’.

This is of course the Koit translation of the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew phrase is: "We-et-zakar lo' shakab mishkevey 'ishshah"

The first two words "we-et" simply mean "and with".

The word "zakar" means a ritually sanctified man.
Shakab - a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force. The word is often misapplied to mean sexual intercourse but the word for sex / carnal knowledge is yakhasey
ishshah – the word for womanorwife.

The Septuagint is condemning adultery not homosexuality and then only when that takes place in the bed of his wife (wives). Or more broadly it denounces a man taking a woman to bed as if she was one of his wives. The original Hebrew condemnation is not a terribly strong one in that it applies only to men who have been sanctified(made ritually pure) and if such a man does commit a rape he only looses that ritual sanctification and must be cleansed to become ritually pure again

Ephesians 4:18-19
[/quote] Nothing here about homosexuality

Ephesians 5:11-12

Nothing here about homosexuality

1 Timothy 1:9-10

See above on the translation of Arsonkoites. And note that here that word is translated to condemn kidnappers or slave traders

Jude 1:6-10

trying to misrepresent the phrase “strange flesh”? don’t bother, it doesn’t work.

To examine what is meant by “strange flesh is not difficult. Strange flesh is clearly defined in Gen 6. Here we read of a time when the "sons of God" cohabited with the "daughters of humans", resulting in a strange progeny called in the Hebrew "nephilim”.

The "sons of God" look to Job 1:6. Here we see that Satan, a fallen angel, was before God as one of the "sons of God" we would understand the "sons of God" to be other angels. We again get the understanding that "sons of God are angels from Job 38:7. Strange flesh means a linking between angelic flesh and human flesh.
Strange flesh refers to sexual activity between angels and humans which has nothing to do with homosexuality but of concourse between two distinct orders of creation.

 

[nChrist]

If one removes God's Word entirely from this discussion:

Same sex behavior is directly responsible for an epidemic of deadly diseases. Millions are dying a horrible, slow, and painful death. It's spread to the straight population through multiple sex partners and sex outside of marriage.

Back to the Bible: Obeying God's Word sure would prevent a tremendous amount of misery and death.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If one removes God's Word entirely from this discussion:

Same sex behavior is directly responsible for an epidemic of deadly diseases. Millions are dying a horrible, slow, and painful death. It's spread to the straight population through multiple sex partners and sex outside of marriage.

Back to the Bible: Obeying God's Word sure would prevent a tremendous amount of misery and death.

you are ignoring the basic facts about HIV/AIDS…including the fact that it was originally a heterosexual disease and has always primarily affected heterosexuals. The vast majority of individuals infected with HIV/AIDS are heterosexuals

On a similar note African American’s suffer disproportionately not only form HIV/AIDS they also have shorter life expectancy, greater rates of heart disease, cardiovascular disuse, and cancer…do these facts make racism acceptable?

 

[Macx]

No actually, it is because of WWII. In WWII being gay in the armed forces was a court martial offense. Towards the later years of the war doctors would describe it as an illness in order to try to keep gays who served out of the stockade for 25 years.

If it helps you sleep at night, you can cling to that. Fact of the matter is, homosexuality is a mental illness & homosexual activity is a sin.

 

[mwood30]

If it helps you sleep at night, you can cling to that. Fact of the matter is, homosexuality is a mental illness & homosexual activity is a sin.

So mental illness is a sin? Is this your point?

 

[Belk]

If it helps you sleep at night, you can cling to that. Fact of the matter is, homosexuality is a mental illness & homosexual activity is a sin.

Yeah, strange how I take the word of doctors over that of some guy on the internet.