Is Homosexuality a sinful act according to the Bible?

[BrotherAtArms]

"Skeptics" are an interesting group of people. My son is about your age, and has that very mindset.

Not all people of today's time are of that mindset. Most of the younger people I know are artists of various kinds and have more of a postmodern mindset.



Some parts of the Bible seem to be about getting the answers, while other parts seem to be about ways to live with the questions. The wisdom you find in Proverbs is very different from the wisdom you find in Job or Ecclesiastes. But you have to understand the kind of wisdom in Proverbs first. Then when you encounter the situations where that doesn't work, you move on to Job and/or Ecclesiastes.

Well I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I as a Christian have been called to minister to all walks of life. I didn't choose this for myself, God did, so I'm going to learn to minister to these people, whether artists or skeptics, so that I can help them as the hands and feet of Christ to have a further understand and closer relationship with God. I don't feel like arguing whether we should know the Bible and teach the Bible or not.

I don't need to know their motivation or position to discuss whether the Scriptures teach that murder is sin.

This is true.

The discussion is about the Scriptures and what they teach about a specific act, not what the motivations are of those who commit such an act.

Again, true.
If there was someone who lied, which is a sin (Biblically), then they need to be taught that it's a sin, even if the person teaching it has never lied.
We can't just sit there and say, "Well we can't discuss this really because no one in here's ever lied before..."
Better to nip it in the bud before it comes out.
The Bible says not to lie, so don't lie. I don't need to know your motivation for lieing to inform you it's a sin... a lie is a lie, and a lie is a sin, even 'little white lies'.

With that said however I find alternative and even opposing points of view interesting and informative. They are not however necessary for me to understand what Scripture says about a particular subject.

I really like this statement, and I highly agree with it.
It's great to hear the 'other side' of the issue, but it isn't needed.

On Judgment Day, I'm sure God's not going to let you say you're side of the story. You're judged, and His is the final Judgment. They can't say, "Well no one ever taught me it was wrong". Oh yes they did, because people discussed it, taught it, and informed you of it. Just like we're doing on this thread.
And as a teacher, the Bible says I'll be judged more strictly of what I teach... I had better teach Truth then, right?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Two men or two women can not come together to become "one flesh".

In Genesis we not only see God giving Adam a "suitable" partner (a woman) but also his definition and reason for marriage.

Gen. 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

In every passage discussing one flesh in Scripture, it is always between a man and a woman.

Actually, no. It refers to kinship. The Hebrew usage may be translated differently in different passages, but the resemblance to Genesis 2 can be seen in a few passages:

Genesis 29:14
Judges 9:2
2 Samuel 5:1
2 Samuel 19:12-13
1 Chronicles 11:1

 

[Crazy Liz]

Sidenotes:

I believe someone can be born "gay". (Yes, I said it) We are all born with sinful desires, some are more pominent then others. Some people have strong desires to steal, strong desires to lie, and the such. Having a strong desire to lust after the same sex is just merely one of many sinful desires we can have. But just because someone has had a strong certain desire since birth doesn't make it okay to exercise. Take a person with a strong desire to kill. Should we let him because he was born a murderer? No. So...claiming to be gay since birth truely means nothing.

True homosexauls will have no offspring (they don't pass on thier genes) so what purpose to they serve in the evolutionary progress which requires genetic transfer? (I don't believe in darwinian evolution, but its something of interest to those who do believe in it.) Since homosexuals do not pass on their genes it can be safely said that homosexuality is not hereditary and not genetic.

From the POV of genetics and evolutionary biology, there seems to be a connection between male homosexuality and female fertility. It appears that the same gene(s) that produce a tendency toward homosexuality in males produce a tendency toward increased fertility in their sisters. So, like the sickle cell gene, it has a helpful evolutionary effect in some people and a harmful evolutionary effect on others, with the net result that it is preserved in the gene pool.

 

[Crazy Liz]

So would I need a murderer present to have a discussion about whether murder is a sin, in order to assure the discussion isn't biased or distorted?

1 John 3:15

Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Yes, it is important to have murderers, or those tempted to murder, included in the discussion. Otherwise, we have a tendency to view "them" as enemies, and fall into hatred ourselves.

Matthew 5:43-44

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't need to know their motivation or position to discuss whether the Scriptures teach that murder is sin. The discussion is about the Scriptures and what they teach about a specific act, not what the motivations are of those who commit such an act. Much more important to such a discussion would be a Biblical scholar, or an Ancient Languages scholar, or even perhaps a person with strong skills in Exegesis. (sp?)

With that said however I find alternative and even opposing points of view interesting and informative. They are not however necessary for me to understand what Scripture says about a particular subject.

What good is it to understand what scripture says about a subject if the practical conclusions you draw about what to do about it are unloving?

1 Corinthians 13:2

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

You need to have the people affected there to discern how to respond to them with love.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. I as a Christian have been called to minister to all walks of life. I didn't choose this for myself, God did, so I'm going to learn to minister to these people, whether artists or skeptics, so that I can help them as the hands and feet of Christ to have a further understand and closer relationship with God. I don't feel like arguing whether we should know the Bible and teach the Bible or not.

OK, that's valid. But while knowing the "truth" may be necessary when doing apologetics with skeptics, it will only take you so far in evangelizing them. Knowing the Truth while being more humble about the details will work better with pomos. If you are called to minister to all walks of life, then you will eventually learn this.

It may never come up for you in this way because a pomo is not so very likely to ask you if "homosexuality is a sinful act." More likely they would ask what the phrase "sinful act" means, and how it is significant. They will more likely respond to a discussion of sin as "missing the mark," and realize immediately that nobody's aim is always perfect, and ask you what to do to improve their aim.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

It may never come up for you in this way because a pomo is not so very likely to ask you if "homosexuality is a sinful act." More likely they would ask what the phrase "sinful act" means, and how it is significant. They will more likely respond to a discussion of sin as "missing the mark," and realize immediately that nobody's aim is always perfect, and ask you what to do to improve their aim.

K I'm glad you said this because this has happened to me before. Me, face to face with a female homosexual, she asked that in my class.
This may sound blunt, but just because it never happens to you doesn't mean it won't or hasn't happened to me or anyone else for that matter.

And I again want to emphasize on something someone else already said. Jesus was without sin, yet He taught and spoke with and discussed sin. Important to note because we're supposed to be 'like Christ'.
Same with John the Baptist, I'm not saying John was perfect, but he preached to crowds just the same.
I highly disagree with requiring someone who's committed certain acts of sin to be present for discussions on sin.
If that were true (Which by the way, the Bible doesn't teach that you need one present), then we would be unable to teach on the 10 commandments. Not as a whole anyways.

And here's an interesting thought for you:
Blasphemy is the unforgivable sin (against the Holy Spirit). This is highly important to teach, and highly important to discuss.
A good reason is because it's unforgivable and many people don't know what blasphemy is (and I can prove that by experience).
So would a blasphemer be required to be present for this discussion?
"OK guys and girls, here's a blasphemer that is doomed to hell with us today to talk to you and with you about blasphemy. Bear in mind since this blasphemer here is unforgiven due to this sin, he/she will more than likely have no spiritual insight on this topic."

EDIT: Which by the way, I see your gay rights avatar, does that mean you've decided to overlook the rule for this thread that states, "Only straight Christians may post for neutrality"?
I was wondering why you were trying to defend this topic from continuing on...

OK PEOPLE, LET'S GET BACK ON TOPIC, BIBLICAL ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE.

 

[Crazy Liz]

K I'm glad you said this because this has happened to me before. Me, face to face with a female homosexual, she asked that in my class.
This may sound blunt, but just because it never happens to you doesn't mean it won't or hasn't happened to me or anyone else for that matter.

This is an interesting question because female homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. There is only one word in one passage (a list of vices in Romans) that some people believe might possibly refer to female homosexuality.

So if you want biblical answers only, how would you weigh biblical silence?

There are other narrative scriptures that, read in context of what we know about ancient cultures, seem to describe things we would associate with female bisexuality without a word of criticism or condemnation.

The idea of homosexuality being the same thing among women and among men is a modern concept that seems not to be reflected in any of the biblical cultures. This makes biblical silence on female homosexuality difficult to interpret and apply to today's situations.

 

[No Swansong]

What good is it to understand what scripture says about a subject if the practical conclusions you draw about what to do about it are unloving?

I never claimed other types of discussion aren't helpful. I claimed that I do not need the perspective of a murderer to discuss the Biblical view of Murder. Just as I don't need the input of a homosexual to understand the Biblical view homosexual acts. (to refer to the OP) Neither their nor my nor anyone elses opinion changes what Scripture teaches. As I posted an Ancient Languages scholar would be far more valuable to such a discussion.

1 Corinthians 13:2

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

You need to have the people affected there to discern how to respond to them with love.

That indeed may be helpful but does not address the question posed. The question posed was if their presence was necessary in order to understand what the Scriptures teach. No one has yet provided any evidence as to why they would be.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

This is an interesting question because female homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. There is only one word in one passage (a list of vices in Romans) that some people believe might possibly refer to female homosexuality.

So if you want biblical answers only, how would you weigh biblical silence?

There are other narrative scriptures that, read in context of what we know about ancient cultures, seem to describe things we would associate with female bisexuality without a word of criticism or condemnation.

The idea of homosexuality being the same thing among women and among men is a modern concept that seems not to be reflected in any of the biblical cultures. This makes biblical silence on female homosexuality difficult to interpret and apply to today's situations.

2 things I'd like to offer you on this:

1.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” It can be argued that it makes no distinction between men and women. It might be interpreted to apply to both. That is, it may be interpreted to mean that sexual relations are to be between a man and a woman, and not any other combination.
The other passage that may have some bearing on the question is Genesis 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This is the passage that specifies that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Presumably, then, the prerogatives of marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Since sexual relations are only supposed to occur between spouses, this would imply that same-gender relations are in violation of God’s intent and desire.

2.
God, without mixing words, judges, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Paul includes lesbianism in the condemnation: "For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature" (Romans 1:26). Later in I Corinthians 6:9, to make our understanding absolutely clear, he writes that neither "homosexuals, nor sodomites" will inherit the Kingdom of God.

I honestly think the Bible speaks for itself quite well.

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

You need to have the people affected there to discern how to respond to them with love.

It's pretty simple to understand how to love. When the Bible talks about God's love for people, it's the word agape, which translated means 'unconditional love'. We are to love people unconditionally, even if they have sin in their lives.
The love does not excuse the sin however, you still have to repent, or turn, from your sin.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I never claimed other types of discussion aren't helpful. I claimed that I do not need the perspective of a murderer to discuss the Biblical view of Murder. Just as I don't need the input of a homosexual to understand the Biblical view homosexual acts. (to refer to the OP) Neither their nor my nor anyone elses opinion changes what Scripture teaches. As I posted an Ancient Languages scholar would be far more valuable to such a discussion.

In my experience, hypothetical questions only lead to tentative answers to practical problems.

Yes, I have studied ANE languages and cultures at the graduate level, although I am by no means an expert. I agree that that would be helpful.

What I have concluded from my study is that "the biblical view of homosexuality" does not exist, because the concept of homosexuality (treating female-female sexuality and male-male sexuality, and sexuality within a committed relationship, promiscuous sex, sexual slavery, prostitution, and ritual sex the same, simply depending on whether the participants are the same gender or different genders) was unknown in any biblical culture. We modern Westerners simply draw our categories differently.

So the "biblical view of homosexuality" that directly answers the question, "Is homosexuality a sinful act according to the Bible?" does not exist. Instead, I would propose that sexual promiscuity, prostitution, and ritual sex outside of marriage are all spoken of as sinful acts from a biblical perspective, regardless of gender of the participants. At least one type of male-male sexuality is called unclean in Leviticus. Male ritual prostitution is disapproved in the NT, as well as the OT. Female-female sexuality is not mentioned at all, except possibly in one list of vices in Romans. Informed by knowledge of ANE customs, it is remarkable that discussion of non-reproductive female sexual activity seems to be carefully avoided. The most obvious example is Esther. If you read it carefully, it is quite obvious that "perfuming" is a euphemism for sexual training, possibly among other skills training and grooming practices. Female-female homosexual acts were unquestionably part of harem life in the ANE.

Now, obviously, most women were monogamous wives, not wives or concubines in a harem. Polygamy was relatively rare, among non-royalty. In fact, from the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, I cannot think of an example mentioned in the Bible of polygamy of anyone other than a king.

http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=91180405
That indeed may be helpful but does not address the question posed. The question posed was if their presence was necessary in order to understand what the Scriptures teach. No one has yet provided any evidence as to why they would be.

If we want to answer the question in the abstract - "sinful or not" - perhaps. But what to do about it within the Christian community is not an abstract question.

Perhaps I've been affected too much by the spiritual discipline of avoiding hypothetical speculation about sin.

 

[No Swansong]

In my experience, hypothetical questions only lead to tentative answers to practical problems.

I am no fan of hypothetical questions either. But the OP is not a hypothetical question.

Yes, I have studied ANE languages and cultures at the graduate level, although I am by no means an expert. I agree that that would be helpful.

I am aware of your contributions in the past concerning the subject have always read such posts with interest.

What I have concluded from my study is that "the biblical view of homosexuality" does not exist, because the concept of homosexuality (treating female-female sexuality and male-male sexuality, and sexuality within a committed relationship, promiscuous sex, sexual slavery, prostitution, and ritual sex the same, simply depending on whether the participants are the same gender or different genders) was unknown in any biblical culture. We modern Westerners simply draw our categories differently.

So the "biblical view of homosexuality" that directly answers the question, "Is homosexuality a sinful act according to the Bible?" does not exist. Instead, I would propose that sexual promiscuity, prostitution, and ritual sex outside of marriage are all spoken of as sinful acts from a biblical perspective, regardless of gender of the participants. At least one type of male-male sexuality is called unclean in Leviticus. Male ritual prostitution is disapproved in the NT, as well as the OT. Female-female sexuality is not mentioned at all, except possibly in one list of vices in Romans. Informed by knowledge of ANE customs, it is remarkable that discussion of non-reproductive female sexual activity seems to be carefully avoided. The most obvious example is Esther. If you read it carefully, it is quite obvious that "perfuming" is a euphemism for sexual training, possibly among other skills training and grooming practices. Female-female homosexual acts were unquestionably part of harem life in the ANE.

Now, obviously, most women were monogamous wives, not wives or concubines in a harem. Polygamy was relatively rare, among non-royalty. In fact, from the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, I cannot think of an example mentioned in the Bible of polygamy of anyone other than a king.

An interesting perspective and one I have read before with interest.

If we want to answer the question in the abstract - "sinful or not" - perhaps.

That was pretty much the question.

But what to do about it within the Christian community is not an abstract question.

Indeed not an abstract question and indeed worthy of careful, prayerful discussion, but not the question that was asked.

Perhaps I've been affected too much by the spiritual discipline of avoiding hypothetical speculation about sin.

Possibly but I do not agree that a discussion regarding what Scripture says about any particular subject is a hypothetical speculation.

 

[Crazy Liz]

2 things I'd like to offer you on this:

1.
Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” It can be argued that it makes no distinction between men and women. It might be interpreted to apply to both.

How so?

That is, it may be interpreted to mean that sexual relations are to be between a man and a woman, and not any other combination.

The Leviticus passage lists prohibited sexual relationships/acts. It does not say, "only this one and no others." You are extrapolating if you reach that conclusion, rather than going by the text itself here.

The other passage that may have some bearing on the question is Genesis 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This is the passage that specifies that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Presumably, then, the prerogatives of marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Marriage is about kinship, not only sexuality. Did you read what I posted above about "one flesh" - bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh?

Since sexual relations are only supposed to occur between spouses, this would imply that same-gender relations are in violation of God’s intent and desire.

You assume sexual relations are only supposed to occur between spouses.

You may draw that conclusion from the cumulation of many scriptures, but you will not find one scripture that expressly says this. The closest you will find is 1 Corinthians 7:2. However, the immediate context (1 Corinthians 7:1-7, is a married person deciding to become celibate, leaving their spouse with no lawful sexual outlet.

2.
God, without mixing words, judges, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13). Paul includes lesbianism in the condemnation: "For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature"

That is the one scripture in Romans I alluded to before. Its interpretation is not necessarily straightforward. However, as I said, if we view sin as "missing the mark" or falling short of the ideal, I am willing to grant you that lesbianism is short of the ideal. Among the people under my pastoral care are some young bisexual girls. Certainly a faithful monogamous relationship is an ideal goal, and if one is able to choose the gender of mate to whom they can be faithful, then everything will go better for them if they choose a mate of the opposite gender. I also minister to a few people already in monogamous gay relationships. What to advise them is not nearly so clear.

As a youth minister serving young people who have not yet made these choices for themselves, I think holding up the ideal is wise. For those who cannot meet the ideal, it gets more difficult.

This seems to be what Paul aims at in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. He is of the opinion that celibacy is the ideal, but those who have a commitment to a spouse need to keep that commitment and serve their sexual needs, rather than aiming for celibacy.

(Romans 1:26). Later in I Corinthians 6:9, to make our understanding absolutely clear, he writes that neither "homosexuals, nor sodomites" will inherit the Kingdom of God.

I honestly think the Bible speaks for itself quite well.

If you have made up your mind, why are you asking the question here?

It's pretty simple to understand how to love. When the Bible talks about God's love for people, it's the word agape, which translated means 'unconditional love'. We are to love people unconditionally, even if they have sin in their lives.
The love does not excuse the sin however, you still have to repent, or turn, from your sin.

Remember that "sin" is primarily derived from an archery term, meaning "missing the mark." So what does "turning from sin" really mean?

 

[Crazy Liz]

That was pretty much the question. Indeed not an abstract question and indeed worthy of careful, prayerful discussion, but not the question that was asked.

Possibly but I do not agree that a discussion regarding what Scripture says about any particular subject is a hypothetical speculation.

The OP has expressed that he needs to know "the truth" in order to be able to give a "straight answer" within the context of his ministry.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

What I have concluded from my study is that "the biblical view of homosexuality" does not exist, because the concept of homosexuality (treating female-female sexuality and male-male sexuality, and sexuality within a committed relationship, promiscuous sex, sexual slavery, prostitution, and ritual sex the same, simply depending on whether the participants are the same gender or different genders) was unknown in any biblical culture.

So the "biblical view of homosexuality" that directly answers the question, "Is homosexuality a sinful act according to the Bible?" does not exist.

I would have to say the Bible disagrees with you. I don't know if you've read all the posts on this thread, but one I can come up with off the top of my head is that it's an abomination, mentioned in Leviticus.

Biblical culture... Sodom and Gomorrah was one of those, and I do recall that some men were wanting to 'know' the angels that went into the lady's house... Yeah, it was known quite well. Even Paul in the New Testament talks about it.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't really appear to me that you've done much studying and you've only ever listened to what people have to say on it. If you had read the Bible objectively, you would have a different view on this.

In fact I think you'd be more for the cause of wanting to learn if Homosexuality is a sin or not (Which so far I think the Biblical evidence that others have shown is clear), craving Truth as all Christians should, instead of coming in and being primarily the only one to stir up some form of debate/argument. Simply show me chapter and verse as to why you think it's not a sinful thing like everyone else has shown and leave it at that...

 

[BrotherAtArms]

How so?



The Leviticus passage lists prohibited sexual relationships/acts. It does not say, "only this one and no others." You are extrapolating if you reach that conclusion, rather than going by the text itself here.



Marriage is about kinship, not only sexuality. Did you read what I posted above about "one flesh" - bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh?



You assume sexual relations are only supposed to occur between spouses.

You may draw that conclusion from the cumulation of many scriptures, but you will not find one scripture that expressly says this. The closest you will find is 1 Corinthians 7:2. However, the immediate context (1 Corinthians 7:1-7, is a married person deciding to become celibate, leaving their spouse with no lawful sexual outlet.



That is the one scripture in Romans I alluded to before. Its interpretation is not necessarily straightforward. However, as I said, if we view sin as "missing the mark" or falling short of the ideal, I am willing to grant you that lesbianism is short of the ideal. Among the people under my pastoral care are some young bisexual girls. Certainly a faithful monogamous relationship is an ideal goal, and if one is able to choose the gender of mate to whom they can be faithful, then everything will go better for them if they choose a mate of the opposite gender. I also minister to a few people already in monogamous gay relationships. What to advise them is not nearly so clear.

As a youth minister serving young people who have not yet made these choices for themselves, I think holding up the ideal is wise. For those who cannot meet the ideal, it gets more difficult.

This seems to be what Paul aims at in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. He is of the opinion that celibacy is the ideal, but those who have a commitment to a spouse need to keep that commitment and serve their sexual needs, rather than aiming for celibacy.



If you have made up your mind, why are you asking the question here?



Remember that "sin" is primarily derived from an archery term, meaning "missing the mark." So what does "turning from sin" really mean?

You know what? I don't feel like debating with someone who conforms the scriptures to her own desires. I'm done.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You know what? I don't feel like debating with someone who conforms the scriptures to her own desires. I'm done.

I thought you were asking a question in good faith for the sake of your ministry.

If your mind was made up and your intent was to debate, I misunderstood. Sorry to intrude.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

You know what? I don't feel like debating with someone who conforms the scriptures to her own desires. I'm done.

I haven't posted in this thread before now, because the OP assumed I would merely be trying to justify my personal choices in life (FYI, I've spent more years biblically condemning myself than I have accepting how God made me). Not that I was too offended by that, either.

As instructed, I'm not going to enter the debate...err, question and answer time. I would like to point out, however, that the OP started off with the premise that the answer to the question "is homosexuality sinful" was an unknown. All evidence thereafter suggests that the answer is already assumed and deeply ingrained, and the initial question merely poses as a request for further justification from a perceived "concrete" source.

 

[BrotherAtArms]

I haven't posted in this thread before now, because the OP assumed I would merely be trying to justify my personal choices in life (FYI, I've spent more years biblically condemning myself than I have accepting how God made me). Not that I was too offended by that, either.

As instructed, I'm not going to enter the debate...err, question and answer time. I would like to point out, however, that the OP started off with the premise that the answer to the question "is homosexuality sinful" was an unknown. All evidence thereafter suggests that the answer is already assumed and deeply ingrained, and the initial question merely poses as a request for further justification from a perceived "concrete" source.

K... believe what you want.

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat On
​

Thread closed at OP request.​