The Biblical view of homosexuality

[hedrick]

Does this mean that God recognizes gay marriage ? Would they be married in the eyes of God?

Yes.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I would be interested to hear what you would have to say about me.
- someone who has had same sex inclinations/attractions ever since his teens, and still even today.
- someone who has fasted, prayed, had Christian counselling, and done everything, time and time again to alter his same sex attractions, but without any change in orientation.
- someone who has never had a same sex relationship, and has always remained chaste and celibate. Someone who still sees men more attractive than women, but finds it easy not to act on those attractions.
- someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, who died for his sins.
- someone who has a faith, who reads and studies the Bible, attends church regularly and has a prayer life.

Our small fellowship has a simple policy. Don't ask. If a believer is not living the lifestyle, then we have no issue with them. Most people are attracted to the opposite sex. It does not make them fornicators automatically. The overemphasis on homosexuality is as wrong as trying to whitewash it. Sin is sin.

I had a number of brushes with homosexuals when I was young. I never had any attraction and I never had any encounter, so to speak. I still picked up a demon of homosexuality. It showed itself in a slight effeminate way. When it was exposed, we cast it out and I've not been troubled since.

 

[hedrick]

So does that mean that Paul's letters only apply to the churches they were written to and not to all believers? Aren't these letters the inspired word of God speaking to us today?

Because they're letters, they're part of a conversation. We don't hear the other side. That means sometimes you have to make educated guesses about the context. I'm pretty sure Rom 1:18-32 is quoting the other party. But without seeing the other side of the conversation someone can disagree.

The main point I was making is that there are questions he deals with because they came up in his churches. But there are things we'd like answers to that he didn't answer because they didn't come up. If eating food sacrificed to pagan gods is an issue for someone, Paul's answer would be fine. But that's not a big problem for us, whereas it was for his people.

There are lots of things that are big problems today that he didn't answer. He didn't tell us whether to baptize infants, whether abortion is murder, or what to do about Christian homosexuals who are trying to be faithful to their partners and otherwise follow Christian ideals. The question never came up. Same-gender sex in his culture was very different. So these weren't questions that his people had. Doesn't mean there's nothing in the Bible we can use to help us make decisions. But we can't just pull a couple of sentences out of context and use them because he didn't actually deal with the question that's bothering us.

 

[hedrick]

I should have answered the question about gay marriage in more detail. So what do we do with people who are only attracted to the same gender.

One answer is that they should marry someone of the opposite gender anyway. In some cases that is OK. Many people have some attraction to both genders. Even though they might consider themselves gay, they're capable of having a decent marriage with the other gender. That's just fine. But what about those who aren't? Marrying someone of the opposite gender is just asking for trouble. How many stories have you heard about people walking out on their families because they're gay and just can't live that way anymore? I had a cousin who was married to someone who was gay or trans or something. The results weren't good.

So do they have to remain celibate. Paul recognized (1 Cor 7:8 ff) that celibacy is a gift, and there are risks to trying it if you don't have the gift. The risk is that you won't be able to do it, and you'll end up doing something irresponsible. So he recommended marriage if you don't have that gift.

Does this apply to gays? Marriage in the Bible is described as involving a man and a woman. (Sort of. There are actually varying forms of marriage and quasi-marriage in the OT. By NT times however, polygamy was considered bad form, though not outlawed. I don't think Jews or members of Paul's congregation likely had slaves, so OT slave concubines probably weren't an issue for them. Free concubines -- pretty much mistresses -- were probably legal but frowned on.) While I wouldn't quite say this, if you like you can consider homosexuality to be a disability. People were created with legs, but we don't ban wheelchairs for those who don't have them. Yes, there are things a same-gender couple can't do. But they can still become one flesh, and carry out most of Jesus' and Paul's visions for marriage. (The idea that marriage is mostly for procreation requires creative interpretation.)

This is a question Paul simply didn't deal with, because no one imagined it. Why not? One answer is because same-sex relations in his time weren't anything that could form the basis for a marriage. At least not as far as Paul's congregations would have been aware. (There's some reason to think that there actually were gay couples with reasonably mutual relationships. But that's not how people typically described same-sex relations, and same-sex marriage existed only as kind of a sick joke. Even in the potentially positive relationships, I'd bet many of them were cheating on their wives.)

 

[Ricky M]

The main relevant passages are Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Genesis 19; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9; and I Timothy 1:10. To address them briefly:

Leviticus is part of the body of Jewish law that includes also various dietary laws, calendar observances, rules for uncleanness, and so on. Possibly Orthodox Jews are still bound by this covenant, but it is not our covenant if we are Gentile Christians.

Genesis 19 is about gang rape, probably intended to show dominance over and humiliation of the visiting strangers. How anyone sees this as a portrayal of loving homosexual intimacy is beyond me.

Romans 1 is probably the strongest basis for an anti-gay argument. If one reads the whole of Romans 1-3 together, though, the flow of it is that Paul describes some things about Gentiles that would make a Jewish reader say "Yes, that's right, those Gentiles are awful sinners" -- and then Paul turns around and says that the Jewish readers are sinners like the Gentiles they just condemned; all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. It's not clear whether Paul is setting out a law against homosexuality in Romans 1, or whether he's just calling up a particular picture that will get a reaction from his Jewish readers.

The trouble with the lists of vices in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 is that we see single words whose meaning isn't clear. A single ambiguous word is a lot to base a doctrine on.


Also to be taken into account is Paul's repeated insistence that we are not bound by the law -- so it's odd to see him creating a new law for Christians to follow.

And, a verse that has haunted me ever since I became aware that several of the young people in our church are gay: "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:6) If I look at these young Christians and say "Be celibate, or get out of my church", I know there's a millstone waiting for me.

If you follow God's word, you don't get a millstone, you get "well done faithful servant".

 

[Ricky M]

The best Bible study on the issue of homosexuality that I have ever found is:

Homosexuality and the Bible by the late Walter Wink,

Former Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Auburn Theological Seminary, New York City.

http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf

Paul wrote what he wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To now apply our 'modern wisdom' to say Paul didn't know what we know and therefore wasn't saying what he said, is to discount and even blaspheme the Holy Spirit who gave Paul God's wisdom.

That's what it comes down to, who's wisdom do you rely on - God's or our own?

 

[hedrick]

If you follow God's word, you don't get a millstone, you get "well done faithful servant".

But God's word doesn't say what you think it does.

First, I think Rom 1:18-32 is something Paul disagrees with. But let's assume this is wrong.

Rom 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Who is "them"? It is pagans, who worshipped idols. Nowhere does Paul say that this applies to all homosexuals or Christian homosexuals. The context is very clear: this is about pagans, who because of idolatry end up with degraded morals. Not just this, but a whole list of other things.

There is every reason to think that for many pagans in the first century, this description was accurate.

You are trying to use a quotation taken out of its context.

 

[Ricky M]

But God's word doesn't say what you think it does.

First, I think Rom 1:18-32 is something Paul disagrees with. But let's assume this is wrong.

Rom 1:26-27
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Who is "them"? It is pagans, who worshipped idols. Nowhere does Paul say that this applies to all homosexuals or Christian homosexuals. The context is very clear: this is about pagans, who because of idolatry end up with degraded morals. Not just this, but a whole list of other things.

There is every reason to think that for many pagans, this description is accurate.

You are trying to use a quotation taken out of its context.

Paul received his words from the Holy Spirit. They are what they say.

Remember, every time you rationalize Paul's thinking, you're rationalizing the Holy Spirit's thinking.

 

[hedrick]

Paul received his words from the Holy Spirit. They are what they say.

Remember, every time you rationalize Paul's thinking, you're rationalizing the Holy Spirit's thinking.

Indeed. They are what they say. If by rationalizing you mean looking at what Paul actually says, I plead guilty.

There's a danger of looking to the Bible to answer questions that it actually doesn't. In that case people glom onto a passage that uses some of the right words, without noticing that it's actually answering a quite different question. When I look at a passage the first question I ask is what point was being made here? What problem was it addressing? This is not rationalization. It's understanding what Scripture actually means.

If you don't do this, you end up with the 19th Cent exegeses claiming that blacks are inferior or more recent exegeses condemning mixed marriages.

 

[Amittai]

So does that mean that Paul's letters only apply to the churches they were written to and not to all believers? Aren't these letters the inspired word of God speaking to us today?

Peter deals with this when he mentions Paul's letters circulating. Paul no doubt left instructions of the kind. Also Spirit filled members in each place will have discerned it.

We Christians mustn't forget the principle of principle!

 

[Amittai]

Yes.

I'm not refuting Hedrick, just all fuzzy about what is meant by "married in the eyes of God" which is a buzz phrase. At some stage there isn't going to be marriage (difficult to imagine of course).

I think the core of the matter is in Paul's intention and his insight and also in the distinctions between obsessions, habitus, identity, orientation. Christians are not called by God to exclude as if by a caste system, some people from salvation. In Scripture, "kingdom of God" seems mainly connected with fruitfulness and fitness for responsibility.

The chasteness mentioned by Anthony and in the Distant Mountains video clinches things in my opinion - at any rate if the chasteness is sufficiently rubbing off on thinking patterns.

Saying to myself "cor what a nice looking bloke" doesn't tell me I need to call myself "homosexual" nor "gay". Life is too big and interesting. I want to give everyone their space and I want to give the laboratory in my head maximum scope to get the best out of all aspects of living.

"Gay" has far too fluid a meaning for me personally to find it useful. My friend's 9 year old is gay, because it was told him at school. Inalienably instructing children unasked, in ghastly and distorted detail, is gay. Of course the true Christian church doesn't discriminate against classes of people. We neglected general prayer for our nations long enough that now, agents provocateurs have got a persuasive message into public minds, who are too used to our dumbing down the depths of the many levels of human existence.

There was a realisation 100 years ago that society had strange issues it hadn't pondered and someone came up with "latent homosexuality" and without underpinning from prayers (and you don't even need to know who your prayers are for) society at large forgot we are all growing up & need to not paint ourselves in corners and can laugh at our own crushes and still be friendly with people (unless they are trying it on with us).

As the church prays less and less, christians' views get shallower; never forget the Scriptures are addressed to Christians and don't forget in what senses. Jesus also used the diatribe method and the tools of the school of "Cynics" on occasion. His and the apostles' words were certainly meant to be received with "knowing" recognition.

Moralisms and legalisms won't cut it, sufficiently. Holy Spirit power for maturing and ever healthier relating (above all praying to re-underpin both the church and the intellectual framework of younger folks around us), will.

 

[Amittai]

accidental botched post sorry

 

[Amittai]

... same-sex relations in his time weren't anything that could form the basis for a marriage. At least not as far as Paul's congregations would have been aware. (There's some reason to think that there actually were gay couples with reasonably mutual relationships. But that's not how people typically described same-sex relations, and same-sex marriage existed only as kind of a sick joke. Even in the potentially positive relationships, I'd bet many of them were cheating on their wives.)

Thank you for excellent background knowedlge, for some reason my system didn't display this post before.

 

[JackRT]

So does that mean that Paul's letters only apply to the churches they were written to and not to all believers? Aren't these letters the inspired word of God speaking to us today?

I approach the Bible like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

 

[gerbilwoman]

Unfortunately it's not a simple answer but I will provide you with some resources:

A excellent book is God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines.

Also some links for you:
https://www.freedhearts.org/resources (scroll down and look under links)
Theological Resources – Metropolitan Community Churches (some PDFs under Homosexuality and the Bible)
Would Jesus Discriminate?

Please remember that God loves your daughter.

 

[Messerve]

I approach the Bible like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to spend a lot of time and effort searching for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.

I've heard that kind of statement before and it's really not okay. To compare passages of the Bible to rubble shows a terrible lack of understanding of what the Bible is. If entire sections of the Bible are just unnecessary filler, can you really believe it's from God? And if it's not from God, then why bother at all? If most of the Bible is rubble, then the "nuggets" are worthless.

There is no Biblical basis for homosexuality. There is reason to show people from that lifestyle concern and care, but we have to draw a line at how far we go with acceptance. We can't just accept sin if God has rejected it. Who do we think we are anyway, to put our desires and preferences above God's? Do we think we can even begin to compare to His holiness and wisdom?

Sorry, the rubble analogy set me off.

 

[hedrick]

I've heard that kind of statement before and it's really not okay. To compare passages of the Bible to rubble shows a terrible lack of understanding of what the Bible is. If entire sections of the Bible are just unnecessary filler, can you really believe it's from God? And if it's not from God, then why bother at all? If most of the Bible is rubble, then the "nuggets" are worthless.

There is no Biblical basis for homosexuality. There is reason to show people from that lifestyle concern and care, but we have to draw a line at how far we go with acceptance. We can't just accept sin if God has rejected it. Who do we think we are anyway, to put our desires and preferences above God's? Do we think we can even begin to compare to His holiness and wisdom?

Sorry, the rubble analogy set me off.

I don't agree with JackRT's description of the Bible. But there is also no reason in the Bible to have a problem with gay relationships that follow normal Christian ideals. There is, of course, no one homosexual lifestyle, any more than there's one heterosexual lifestyle. There is everything from promiscuity to people trying to follow Christian ideals for marriage.

Paul's negative comments, if he even meant them (I think he's quoting his opponent) are about pagans, not Christians, as he makes quite clear.

 

[pescador]

I've heard that kind of statement before and it's really not okay. To compare passages of the Bible to rubble shows a terrible lack of understanding of what the Bible is. If entire sections of the Bible are just unnecessary filler, can you really believe it's from God? And if it's not from God, then why bother at all? If most of the Bible is rubble, then the "nuggets" are worthless.

There is no Biblical basis for homosexuality. There is reason to show people from that lifestyle concern and care, but we have to draw a line at how far we go with acceptance. We can't just accept sin if God has rejected it. Who do we think we are anyway, to put our desires and preferences above God's? Do we think we can even begin to compare to His holiness and wisdom?

Sorry, the rubble analogy set me off.

You said, "There is no Biblical basis for homosexuality." I say, as did Jesus, "Love your neighbor as yourself." If two men love each other, what's wrong with that?

 

[pescador]

Why does 2 Samuel 1:26 say about Israel's greatest king, "At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman."

 

[Blade]

Yeah.. its marriage. Man woman leave parents and come together and become one. This is how life starts. This is very dear to Gods heart. So if they are gay and together (married) unless they adopted they would have to sin even more to have a child. Go out side of married for that "egg, sperm". Already in sin being married.

In this its not what we say is true or not. Gods word speaks for its self. Forgive me not trying to offend.. know of way to many true stories..seen heard where prayed for.. and after they can't explain why that desire for the same sex is gone.. just gone. I know a girl cried and cried out to God.. she said.. one day she woke up and.. she could not stop crying.. it was gone.. she could not explain it..

I know this.. there is no sin that keeps us from heaven. Its do we know Jesus as lord. I think KNOWING that you know that you know somethings a sin and keep going is... what happens.. I don't know. But so many are blind "if you were blind you would have no sin. You say you see your sin remains".

again for God its MAN and WOMAN together. Thats what Satan is trying to tear apart. He knows that hurts God. I've seen two women gay and abortion clinic where the people next door just took them cookies all the times. Invited them over for dinner now and again. NEVER condemned them or judged them. One day at dinner both got saved and stopped living together. Jesus is real. He takes you as you are.. does not judge or condemn.. and what HE starts HE finishes