WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[artybloke]

I understand the need to be pationate about something which you believe in, but evidently sometimes that desire leaves us open to deceit from satan, and it therefore takes others to show us we are wrong because our hearts are hardened to God,

The good ol' fundagelical verb parsing:

"I know what the Bible means.

You have laid yourself open to deciet from Satan.

Thay are the spawn of Satan."

Why is youir interpretation of ancient texts any better than mine? Who'd you think you are, God?

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi Artybloke,
No I don`t think I am God, however I do know what the bible "appears" to say on the issue of homosexuality, as the bible was written by men under inspiration from the spirit it would be a good guess that what the scriptures say is what God says.
Now bearing that in mind, again I ask for one verse from the scriptures that God has given as a guide for us to lead our earthly lives pleasing to him, (faith working through love), where He says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is right in His eyes in any context.

Thankyou

Mark .

 

[Athanasian Creed]

Repeating the 'fact' that it is a sin doesn't explain why it is a sin.

So my saying God's word condemns it does not explain why it is a sin?? Is it not enough that God Himself calls it an abomination. Another verse i should have posted previous is more than clear on how God views homosexuality -

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

The Apostle Paul calls those who "abuse themselves with mankind" ( arsenokoitai. Paederastae, or Sodomites. Those who indulged in a vice that was common among all the heathen.) (Barnes) unrighteous who will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. It is clear from these verses that why it is sin is because God views it as such - and His word uses such words as "against nature", "unnatural", "an abomination" to describe sodomites.

Doesn't hold water unless all relationships which cannot result in children are sinful.

The fact that God created Adam and Eve, male and female, joining them in marriage and telling them to "go forth and multiply" holds water. The fact that heterosexual, married couples can't have children has nothing to do with it! God has never sanctioned unnatural homosexual 'couple' relationships, let alone same sex 'marriage' which we in Canada who fear God must endure!

See the first point.

It seems apparent to me that you are unwilling to take God at His word and the clear teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is, without a doubt, sinful behaviour and a sinful lifestyle. The fact that it is mentioned as sinful in both Testaments proves that it is not a cultural thing or specific only for Old Testament times. It has been sinful in God's eyes throughout the course of human history - His word proving this to be the case!


Ray

 

[127Rockledge]

Ray, your "evidence" is not clear and concise. Your view of 1st Corinthians 6-9 really holds no water.

Natural is subjective. What comes to be of my natural state of mind is completely different from yours.

From your position of what is natural I could argue that furthering technology to improve anything other than what we need to survive would be a sin. It's a matter of perception.

 

[ebia]

So my saying God's word condemns it does not explain why it is a sin??

No.

Is it not enough that God Himself calls it an abomination

.
If he had, that might be enough to convince one that it is a sin, but it certainly is not an explanation of why it is a sin.

"God said so" is a possible answer to "how do you know it is a sin", but it isn't an answer to "why..."

Another verse i should have posted previous is more than clear on how God views homosexuality

They don't address the question being asked.

The fact that God created Adam and Eve, male and female, joining them in marriage and telling them to "go forth and multiply" holds water. The fact that heterosexual, married couples can't have children has nothing to do with it!

It has everything to do with it if you claim the possiblity of children as reason. It's called consistancy and following an argument to it's conclusion.

God has never sanctioned unnatural homosexual 'couple' relationships, let alone same sex 'marriage' which we in Canada who fear God must endure!

Again, this has nothing to do with the question the OP asks.

It seems apparent to me that you are unwilling to take God at His word and the clear teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is, without a doubt, sinful behaviour and a sinful lifestyle. The fact that it is mentioned as sinful in both Testaments proves that it is not a cultural thing or specific only for Old Testament times. It has been sinful in God's eyes throughout the course of human history - His word proving this to be the case!

Again, this does not address the question being asked.

 

[meselfs]

The Bible says that fornication is wrong and it says that homosexuality is wrong.

I don't see how you can ok one and reject the other. That's called Cafeteria Christianity and is, in my opinion, very, very, very unhealthy.

This doesn't of course answer the question of this thread, but I thought it'd be a good thing to point out. If you have no problem with homosexuality, you shouldn't have a problem with fornication. Both are harmless, assuming no kids or disease are involved.

 

[HunterRose]

So my saying God's word condemns it does not explain why it is a sin?? Is it not enough that God Himself calls it an abomination. Another verse i should have posted previous is more than clear on how God views homosexuality -

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

The Apostle Paul calls those who "abuse themselves with mankind" ( arsenokoitai. Paederastae, or Sodomites. Those who indulged in a vice that was common among all the heathen.) (Barnes) unrighteous who will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. It is clear from these verses that why it is sin is because God views it as such - and His word uses such words as "against nature", "unnatural", "an abomination" to describe sodomites.

So if Paul meant homosexual (or sodomite) as you are implying the word arsenokoitai translates as…why didn’t he use the word he meant instead of an obscure word that no one else was using to mean homosexual when there were well known words in Greek that clearly meant homosexual?

And then there is the fact that arsenokoitai is, for some reason, translated differently in Timothy

The fact that God created Adam and Eve, male and female, joining them in marriage and telling them to "go forth and multiply" holds water. The fact that heterosexual, married couples can't have children has nothing to do with it! God has never sanctioned unnatural homosexual 'couple' relationships, let alone same sex 'marriage' which we in Canada who fear God must endure!

Well if one wants to the fact that homosexual couples cannot reproduce as an excuse for discrimination…then it does something to do with it.

It seems apparent to me that you are unwilling to take God at His word and the clear teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is, without a doubt, sinful behaviour and a sinful lifestyle.

well there is a lot of doubt. The new testament suffers from prominent translation issues. In the old testament the only place the bible is actually clear on the subject is right next to verses making slavery and the murder of ones own child moral acts.

 

[HunterRose]

The Bible says that fornication is wrong and it says that homosexuality is wrong.

I don't see how you can ok one and reject the other. That's called Cafeteria Christianity and is, in my opinion, very, very, very unhealthy.

It also says that heating shellfish is wrong

It says that wearing gold jewelry is wrong.


and that wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics is wrong,

and that shaving is wrong.

So you do any of these things?

Are you not then also engaging in “Cafeteria Christianity”?

 

[snoochface]

It also says that heating shellfish is wrong

It says that wearing gold jewelry is wrong.


and that wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics is wrong,

and that shaving is wrong.

So you do any of these things?

Are you not then also engaging in “Cafeteria Christianity”?

All of that was under the Old Testament law. If you read Romans, not only does it talk about homosexuality being a sin (I know you dispute this) but it also has an entire chapter devoted to Christian liberties and no longer needing to adhere to the law of Moses.

 

[meselfs]

It also says that heating shellfish is wrong

It says that wearing gold jewelry is wrong.


and that wearing clothing made of mixed fabrics is wrong,

and that shaving is wrong.

So you do any of these things?

Are you not then also engaging in “Cafeteria Christianity”?

Though I personally reject both fornication and homosexuality, here I'm not saying anything is wrong. I'm just saying that I can't see how it's possible to reject one and keep the other.

We don't offer burnt sacrifices and we don't get smote for picking up sticks on the (in my opinion still holy) Sabbath because that's Torah and such law's have been "fulfilled". Indeed, Romans has it spelled out shortly but simply. Somewhere in Hebrews 13 it says against adultery.

These are both AD. Reject one and there's no sense in keeping the other.

And FYI:
I don't have any jewelry and I don't like jewelry on other people. Turns me off.
I don't heat/eat shellfish, I don't believe I have any mixed fabric clothing (though I'll have to check), and I've never shaved. It doesn't matter, though.

I'm no Jew, btw.

 

[HunterRose]

All of that was under the Old Testament law. If you read Romans, not only does it talk about homosexuality being a sin (I know you dispute this) but it also has an entire chapter devoted to Christian liberties and no longer needing to adhere to the law of Moses.

Christians no longer need adhere to the ten commandments?



News to me!


Particularly since Jesus said otherwise on several occasions:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19



“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17


“Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law.” John 7:19




And BTW…the prohibition on wearing gold is a new testament rule

 

[ebia]

Though I personally reject both fornication and homosexuality, here I'm not saying anything is wrong. I'm just saying that I can't see how it's possible to reject one and keep the other.

We don't offer burnt sacrifices and we don't get smote for picking up sticks on the (in my opinion still holy) Sabbath because that's Torah and such law's have been "fulfilled". Indeed, Romans has it spelled out shortly but simply. Somewhere in Hebrews 13 it says against adultery.

These are both AD. Reject one and there's no sense in keeping the other.

And FYI:
I don't have any jewelry and I don't like jewelry on other people. Turns me off.
I don't heat/eat shellfish, I don't believe I have any mixed fabric clothing (though I'll have to check), and I've never shaved. It doesn't matter, though.

I'm no Jew, btw.

I've lost track of how you've arrived at the conclusion that if one rejects one then one must reject the other - perhaps you could clarify.

I think you had better define 'fornication' as well.

 

[snoochface]

Christians no longer need adhere to the ten commandments?



News to me!


Particularly since Jesus said otherwise on several occasions:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19



“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." Luke 16:17


“Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law.” John 7:19




And BTW…the prohibition on wearing gold is a new testament rule

The ten commandmants don't talk about eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or shaving. Clearly you know that. You are now just arguing for the sake of arguing, to distract from the point of the discussion.

THAT is the law being referred to, not the ten commandmants. In every example given in the New Testament about not being required to follow the law - which, if it's "news" to you, you should read your NT more - refers to those laws, not to the ten commandmants. But I strongly suspect that you know this too.

 

[HunterRose]

The ten commandmants don't talk about eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, or shaving. Clearly you know that. You are now just arguing for the sake of arguing, to distract from the point of the discussion.

THAT is the law being referred to, not the ten commandmants. In every example given in the New Testament about not being required to follow the law - which, if it's "news" to you, you should read your NT more - refers to those laws, not to the ten commandmants. But I strongly suspect that you know this too.

Allow me to refresh your memory regarding the discussion:

You tried to claim regarding some laws no longer employed by modern Christians “All of that was under the Old Testament law.” Implying that hold testament law was not applicable to modern Christians. However, the original point was the inflicting of Leviticus verses to justify prejudice and discrimination. My repose (the one you originally took umbrage to) was that if you are going to use such texts as Leviticus to justify prejudice then you had better be prepared to justify why you are ignoring all those uncomfortable old testament laws. And that point remains. Either one accepts all of the old testament laws as applicable (even to oneself) or one accepts that the laws of the bible were supplement by Jesus. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35
You can’t have it both ways.

It is interesting to note that the commandment of Jesus tosses Romans (whatever translation is picked) out the window. because prejudice and discrimination do not fit into the definition of love no matter how those trying to justify such things try.


And just for your reference….
“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

 

[ebia]

There seem to be two conversations that are worth of FAQ status they crop up so often:

Conversation 1
Conservative: Homosexuality is wrong - it says so in Leviticus
Liberal: Levitcus also says wearing mixed fibres is wrong - are you wearing a polycotton shirt?
Conservative: We aren't under the law anymore - it doesn't apply, why did you bring it up?

Conversation 2
Conservative: homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural
Liberal: no it's not - it occurs frequently in nature
Conservative: lots of things are natural, that doesn't make them ok

In both cases the conservative has forgotten that it was him who brought up the point and it is his point that is being refuted. Do people have very short memories or something?

 

[HunterRose]

There seem to be two conversations that are worth of FAQ status they crop up so often:

Conversation 1
Conservative: Homosexuality is wrong - it says so in Leviticus
Liberal: Levitcus also says wearing mixed fibres is wrong - are you wearing a polycotton shirt?
Conservative: We aren't under the law anymore - it doesn't apply, why did you bring it up?

Conversation 2
Conservative: homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural
Liberal: no it's not - it occurs frequently in nature
Conservative: lots of things are natural, that doesn't make them ok

In both cases the conservative has forgotten that it was him who brought up the point and it is his point that is being refuted. Do people have very short memories or something?

You forgot the common response: “well that’s …different”

 

[snoochface]

No, the main difference between our viewpoints has nothing to do with whether we hold to the levitical law. It has to do with whether or not we believe that the NEW TESTAMENT states homosexuality is a sin. I believe that it very clearly does. You do not.

My basis for this discussion never had anything to do with Old Testament law. My responses to the questions you raised about OT law were simply that - responses to your comments. Not arguments in support of my view on homosexual behavior.

 

[HunterRose]

No, the main difference between our viewpoints has nothing to do with whether we hold to the levitical law. It has to do with whether or not we believe that the NEW TESTAMENT states homosexuality is a sin. I believe that it very clearly does. You do not.

My basis for this discussion never had anything to do with Old Testament law. My responses to the questions you raised about OT law were simply that - responses to your comments. Not arguments in support of my view on homosexual behavior.

I am really not surprised that you ignored the points I made

You tried to claim regarding some laws no longer employed by modern Christians “All of that was under the Old Testament law.” Implying that hold testament law was not applicable to modern Christians.

However, the original point waaaayyyy back there was that when one picks and chooses a handful of bible verses to justify personal prejudice one is subject to having to justify why one chooses to ignore neighboring inconvenient and very un PC bible verses


This was the post you originally took umbrage to

Your defense was and remains that it is perfectly acceptable for you to pick and choose what biblical rules you wish to ignore and which ones you wish to inflict upon others.

However that really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Either one accepts all of the old testament laws as applicable (even to oneself) or one accepts that the laws of the bible were supplement by Jesus. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

No matter how much you may want to….You can’t have it both ways.



I also noted…and you ignored that the commandment of Jesus (John 13:34-35) tosses Romans (whatever translation is picked) out the window. Because prejudice and discrimination do not fit into the definition of love no matter how hard you try.

And again…just for your reference….

“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

 

[tqpix]

There are numerious threads in the Ethics & Morality forum, but I wanted to open a thread to list reasons why homosexuality is called a "sin".

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. I will explain later.

How does it affect/harm homosexuals or other people?

It would greatly affect homosexuals I would think, because people are practically saying that every day, homosexuals are committing a sin from the moment they get up to the time to go to bed.

...all the other sins (stealing, murdering,...) are obviously harmful.

I don't think you've noticed, but "stealing" and "murdering" are verbs (i.e., they require actions). "Homosexuality" is not a verb, it is a noun; therefore, you should not compare "homosexuality" to "stealing" and "murdering".

I will post what I posted in another forum to clarify what I'm trying to say:

In a lot of passages, "homosexuals" is "them that defile themselves with mankind" in the KJV.

I used to think that homosexuality is a sin, but last night, my eyes were opened. Homosexuality is NOT a sin, but rather, homosexual ACTS is the sin [i.e., the act of sleeping with members of the same sex; hence, the KJV says "them that defile themselves with mankind"--this gives the impression that homosexual Christians may receive salvation as long as they don't defile themselves with mankind (i.e., they don't sleep with members of the same sex)].

Homosexuality is a punishment from God [Romans 1:26-27 (context starts at Romans 1:21 it seems, but I could be wrong)]. Punishments are not sins; therefore, homosexuality is not a sin.

.

 

[snoochface]

I am really not surprised that you ignored the points I made

You tried to claim regarding some laws no longer employed by modern Christians “All of that was under the Old Testament law.” Implying that hold testament law was not applicable to modern Christians.

You really do love to argue. I'll explain one more time and then I'm done - I'll even let you have the last word, if you so choose.

The Old Testament law is not applicable to modern Christians, this is the truth. I'll stipulate that I did, and continue to, state this as fact.

However, the original point waaaayyyy back there was that when one picks and chooses a handful of bible verses to justify personal prejudice one is subject to having to justify why one chooses to ignore neighboring inconvenient and very un PC bible verses

This was the post you originally took umbrage to

First and foremost - it is not exhibiting prejudice to point out that something is sinful. I do not exhibit prejudice to anyone, be they homosexuals, liars, adulterers, or whatever - we are ALL sinners, and I hold no prejudice of one over another over my-own-self. Stating that something is a sin does not make me prejudiced.

Beyond that, however, I will state yet again that since the Bible states we are no longer under the Old Testament law, and since the New Testament which we held accountable to does state that homosexual behavior is a sin, your "picking and choosing" comment does not pertain. I don't know why you keep harping on that. I'm not saying that any Old Testament laws are to be held to. I'm saying New Testament "laws" are what we are to follow now.

One of those laws, as you've mentioned, is Jesus' Most Important Commandmants: Love God, love each other. Every single one of the ten commandmants falls under one or both of these two rules. So yeah, the ten commandmants are covered.

Your defense was and remains that it is perfectly acceptable for you to pick and choose what biblical rules you wish to ignore and which ones you wish to inflict upon others.

However that really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Either one accepts all of the old testament laws as applicable (even to oneself) or one accepts that the laws of the bible were supplement by Jesus. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

Right. See above.

I also noted…and you ignored that the commandment of Jesus (John 13:34-35) tosses Romans (whatever translation is picked) out the window. Because prejudice and discrimination do not fit into the definition of love no matter how hard you try.

You're just wrong about this. Nothing tosses Romans out the window. You disbelieve an entire book of the Bible??

Again, it's not showing prejudice or discrimination to state that something is a sin. You don't know anything about me, yet you presume that I am an unloving discriminator who hates homosexuals and is prejudiced against them. Is it prejudice to say that murder is a sin, when the Bible says that it is? No... it's not, it's just a fact. And that doesn't mean that we should not still demonstrate God's love to murderers. But we aren't to condone their actions.

And again…just for your reference….

“Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

I completely agree. Thanks for the beautiful passage. I love reading it.

I'm done. Enjoy.