Homosexuality and the Bible (1/5/06)

[biggestidiotintheworld]

Cyberpunk Hero

First, the passage does not condone homosexuality. It does not condemn homosexuality. The issue is not the former, it's the latter.

Oh.

...Oh. So this isn't a debate as to whether homosexuality is condoned in the Bible. Condone, comdemn. They sound similar. :p And once again I have.

Anyway, I'm going to reread some of the posts here. If I have any questions, I'll ask then. Thanks for your help and patience, and I'm sorry I couldn't contribute anything to the debate. sad  

[Pixelaine]

[~mihael~]

okay, dont get me started! i am a gay christian! i ahve acceptped jesus as my lord and savior! i follow gods word! i go to church. so does that mean im going tohell? no, as long as i have rewserved a place in the book of life, then no. god loves all of us, even homosexuals, all the same way! if anything, ostricizing a homosexual because of their sexuality is a sin! if a chuch does not allow a homosexual in their church, then that is a sin as well! it al comes down to homophobia! and all homophobia is is a hatred of homosexuals. and doesnt the bible say hatred is a sin?

Exactly. We are certainly not to hate homosexuals. However, assuming that homosexuality for this sake is a sin, we are taught to hate the sin, not the individual. Thus, teaching against homosexuality in a church is justified, as would be teaching against murder.  

[Emikay]

[~mihael~]

okay, dont get me started! i am a gay christian! i ahve acceptped jesus as my lord and savior! i follow gods word! i go to church. so does that mean im going tohell? no, as long as i have rewserved a place in the book of life, then no. god loves all of us, even homosexuals, all the same way! if anything, ostricizing a homosexual because of their sexuality is a sin! if a chuch does not allow a homosexual in their church, then that is a sin as well! it al comes down to homophobia! and all homophobia is is a hatred of homosexuals. and doesnt the bible say hatred is a sin?

But laying with a same sex partner is sexually immoral. And that is a sin.

And true, Jesus was the atonement for all sins. But if you truly have accepted him and love him, why would you want to live a life of sin? A life that challenges God's word? A life that can never fully please God?

And it's not about hating homosexuals. It's about helping them. Anyone can be saved, but why not give our best efforts to please God and follow his word as he wrote it?  

[Cyberpunk Hero]

Emikay

But laying with a same sex partner is sexually immoral. And that is a sin.

No, it isn't.  

[Emikay]

Cyberpunk Hero

Emikay

But laying with a same sex partner is sexually immoral. And that is a sin.

No, it isn't.

Really?
Okay. I'm going to include my biblical evidence.

Leviticus 18:22 "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both commited an abomination. They must be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."
Romans 1:26-27 "This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural. The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourses with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another."

Need I go on?

Flung all over the Bible is reference to "sexual immorality" as a sin.
In the times of the events of the Bible and the time of it's writing, sexually immoral was defined by four things;
1 - Sex with a woman on her menstruation cycle.
2 - Sex with a prostitute.
3 - a**l sex between two males.
4 - A wife committing adultry upon her husband.

All sin is forgiveable. So homosexuals can be saved.
But in 1 John 3:6 it is written, "No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."
So how well could a homosexual know Jesus to continue his own life of sin, displeasing the Lord and Son he says he loves?
And any homosexual who says that the Bible does not mention homosexuality as a sin, has clearly not read the Bible.  

[Shiroi Kokoro no Mendori]

Emikay

Cyberpunk Hero

Emikay

But laying with a same sex partner is sexually immoral. And that is a sin.

No, it isn't.

Really?
Okay. I'm going to include my biblical evidence.

Leviticus 18:22 "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both commited an abomination. They must be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."

http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm < Appendix B
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html

Quote:

Romans 1:26-27 "This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural. The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourses with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another."

http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm < Appendix B
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/romans_1_21.html

Quote:

Need I go on?

Flung all over the Bible is reference to "sexual immorality" as a sin.
In the times of the events of the Bible and the time of it's writing, sexually immoral was defined by four things;
1 - Sex with a woman on her menstruation cycle.
2 - Sex with a prostitute.
3 - a**l sex between two males.
4 - A wife committing adultry upon her husband.

a**l sex is nowhere in the Bible inherently condemned as a sin. Sex while a woman was on her cycle was only condemned under the Jewish holiness code, which was fulfilled, as seen in Colossians 2:13-17.

Quote:

All sin is forgiveable. So homosexuals can be saved.

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/early_church.html

Quote:

But in 1 John 3:6 it is written, "No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."
So how well could a homosexual know Jesus to continue his own life of sin, displeasing the Lord and Son he says he loves?

Fallacy of the undistributed middle. It's not a sin.

[quote[And any homosexual who says that the Bible does not mention homosexuality as a sin, has clearly not read the Bible.

I have read the bible. I cite verses for you. I can give you links galore to articles on how homosexuality is not a sin, and neither is gay sex in a committed, loving relationship. Saying it is a sin is akin to calling the sin of Onan masturbation.


A note: Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori has been banned. This is my brand-new temp account. Take a look at my username to figure out what they thought I should be banned for.  

[Cyberpunk Hero]

Emikay

Really?
Okay. I'm going to include my biblical evidence.

Leviticus 18:22 "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both commited an abomination. They must be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."

Been addressed already. Leviticus has been surpassed by the Law of Agape as proclaimed by Jesus.

Emikay

Romans 1:26-27 "This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual intercourse for what is unnatural. The males in the same way also left natural sexual intercourses with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another."

Does not condemn homosexuality.

Try again.  

[Emikay]

Okay.
Both of you are basing your arguments on sources that people have written, about the Bible. Not the Bible itself. Show me a verse in the Bible that states, "Love conditions sexual relations between two males or two females, as long as they truly are in love."

Adirtyrottenpedophile ; What verses did you site?
And I've read your given articles.
And I've identified the way in which they are all wrong.
All are defendants, not prosecutors.
All are excuses.
Jesus was not a defendant. Because he knew what was right and wrong, and he was free of sin. He had nothing to defend, because he had done no wrong. Defense is only need when we have done wrong. Your articles take clearly written scriptures and try to write them off as "well that was a different thing then, this thing didn't exist".
But God knew what the world would come to when he inspired those who wrote the Bible.

And Colossians 2:13; Jesus cancels out all sin, for he is forgiveness. Nothing is sin once you've gone through Jesus because he takes all the sin away. But the acts he took away are still sin.

Cyberpunk Hero: How does the verse from Romans not condemn homeosexuality?
Sex between two males or two females is unnatural.
That is why when Adam was alone, God did not say, "Oh here Adam, here's Billy."

God made sex as a shared gift to unite a husband and wife (Song of Songs) and to reproduce.

Homosexual interactions are sexual acts done out of lust, which is undoubtably, a sin.  

[Cyberpunk Hero]

Emikay

Cyberpunk Hero: How does the verse from Romans not condemn homeosexuality?

Lustful sex is sinful. That's what the passage says, and we already knew that. It also says they were engaging in homosexual sex, it does not say that homosexuality is sinful.

Emikay

Cyberpunk Hero:
Sex between two males or two females is unnatural.
That is why when Adam was alone, God did not say, "Oh here Adam, here's Billy."

That's an awful argument. Are you really that stupid?

Just because Adam was given someone to reproduce with does not mean that homosexuality is wrong.

Emikay

Cyberpunk Hero:
God made sex as a shared gift to unite a husband and wife (Song of Songs) and to reproduce.

Just because it has a purpose does not mean that is the only purpose. If it can unite a husband and wife, why not a husband and husband?

Emikay

Homosexual interactions are sexual acts done out of lust, which is undoubtably, a sin.

Back up your assertion that all homosexual sex is purely lustful, or concede the point, you bigot.  

[Emikay]

Okay. Now you're reducing yuorself to name-calling?

The Bible proves my point.
If you don't believe it, it's your choice.

Everyone who believes in Jesus is saved, and it's not my place to pass judgement on anyone.
I just hope that your beliefs don't displease God, he does so much for us, that it would be a shame to call Him and His book full of lies.  

[Metanoeo]

About the Law. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18 ) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative.

Two passages in the Old Testament specifically proscribe all such acts, namely, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. This would include male homosexuality and female homosexuality or lesbianism Thus, when members of the same (homo) sex practice intercourse with each other (or in the biblical idiom "to lie with"), [1] they volate the basic order that God has intended for creation and bring defilement on the nation and do that which God declares is an "abomination." The word "abomination" is used five times in Leviticus 18 (vv.22, 26, 27, 29, 30) and once in Leviticus 20:13. It comes from the root meaning "to hate" or "abhor" and hence it is something that is hated by God and is detestable (e.g., Prov. 6:16; 11:1). [2]

For those who would once again attempt to dismiss these three passages in the law as being merely ceremonial and temporary in their authority must come to terms with the context of these prohibitions in the holiness law. Encased and framed as they are in the statements of aseity ("I am the LORD your God," Lev. 18:4, 30) and continued with a call to general holiness ("Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy," Lev. 19:2; 20:26), such a case for ceremonialism is hopeless from the very start. To prohibit homosexuality today, some would argue, would be like forbiding unclean meats. It is admitted of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.

Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual Acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual Acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual Acts in the Old Testament.

Romans 1:26-27. The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual Acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be "unclean" in order to draw Jews (or "weaker brethren") into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable.

Paul's general purpose in the context (Rom 1:18-32) is to show the need for the gospel in the Gentile world. As a result of idolatry, God "gave them over" to all kinds of sinful behavior. The trifold structure of the passage is a rhetorical device to drive home the point: a general complaint (vv. 24-25), consideration of a specific vice (vv. 26-27), and a culminating list of various vices (vv. 28-32). The distinction between the second and third sections may follow another Greek-styled distinction of sins of passion and sins of the unfit mind.

Paul is accused of everything from extreme prejudice to repressed homosexual urges for choosing same-gender sex as his focus in verses 26-27. But the scarcity of other references and the use of impersonal, rhetorical language here suggests, on the contrary, considerable detachment. The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Paul's need to find a visible sign of humankind's fundamental rejection of God's creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Paul's mind in forming the passage.

Paul's terminology in the passage clearly denotes sin and not mere ritual impurity. The context is introduced by the threat of wrath against "godlessness and wickedness" (v. 18 ). Those in view in verses 26-27 have been given over to "passions, " a word group that elsewhere in Romans and consistently in Paul's writings connotes sin. Words like "impurity" (v. 24) and "indecent" (v. 27; cf. "degrading, " v. 24) had in Paul's time extended their meaning beyond ritual purity to moral and especially sexual wrongdoing. To do that which is "unnatural" (vv. 26-27) or "contrary to nature" was common parlance in contemporary literature for sexual perversion and especially homosexual Acts. Paul uses several expressions here that are more typical of Gentile moral writers not because he is attempting to soften his condemnation but because he wishes to find words peculiarly suited to expose the sinfulness of the Gentile world in its own terms.

The substance of Paul's proscription of homosexuality is significant in several respects. First, he mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality. This is unusual if not unique in the ancient world, and it demonstrates that Paul's concern is less with progeniture than with rebellion against sexual differentiation or full created personhood. Second, Paul speaks in terms of mutual consent (e.g., "inflamed with lust for one another, " v. 27), effectively including Acts other than rape and pederasty in the prohibition. Third, the passage describes corporate as well as individual rebellion, a fact that may have implications for modern discussions of "orientation." In other words, although Paul does not address the question here directly, it is reasonable to suppose that he would consign the orientation toward homosexual Acts to the same category as heterosexual orientation toward adultery or fornication. The "natural" or "fleshly" proclivity is a specific byproduct of the corporate human rebellion and in no way justifies itself or the activity following from that proclivity. On the basis of any of these three implications, it is legitimate to use the word "homosexuality" as it is conceived in the modern world when speaking of Romans 1 and, by cautious extension, when speaking of the related biblical passages.

[1] Prof. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "Old Testament Ethics"
[2] Wenham, Leviticus, 295 notes that abomination is more common in Deuteronomy (17 times), Proverbs (21 times) and Ezekiel (43 times).  

[Cyberpunk Hero]

Emikay

Okay. Now you're reducing yuorself to name-calling?

The Bible proves my point.
If you don't believe it, it's your choice.

I've reduced myself to far below that, thank you very much. But the Bible does not support your bigotry.  

[Cyberpunk Hero]

Quote:

It is admitted of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.

Oh, what the [censored by guild rules].

Right there. You have no basis for your assumption that homosexuality is any different from any of the other temporary ceremonial laws. Your nonsense about "points to or anticipates Christ" is completely transparent, and the rule about the death penalty is completely made-up and ignores several other laws that also call for the death penalty but are not followed today.

Quote:

Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual Acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual Acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual Acts in the Old Testament.

Trying to use arsenokoités to validate your argument is, at best, tenuous, and at worst completely fallacious.

Simply taking the compounds of the word apart to decipher its meaning is ridiculous, as the English language itself shows. Furthermore, later usage of the term (since Paul invented it, all other uses fall under this category) suggest it has origins in economic exploitation via sexual means.

And as far as Romans goes, that entire chapter has been addressed recently and succinctly. To boil down the counterargument once more: Paul says that women are performing sinful sexual acts with women and men with men. That is not the same thing as saying that it's sinful for women/men to have sex with women/men.  

[Emikay]

Cyberpunk Hero

Emikay

Okay. Now you're reducing yuorself to name-calling?

The Bible proves my point.
If you don't believe it, it's your choice.

I've reduced myself to far below that, thank you very much. But the Bible does not support your bigotry.

Atleast you admit to it.

And yes, it does.
And even if you believe it to not.
Rest assured that it does not support any statement you have yet to make.

And also, you used succinctly to describe the reference to Romans.
And I believe you are right.
Why would great amounts of extravagant words be used to describe what God himself has made short and to the point?
"To lay with another male is abomination."

And the sinful acts between women with women and men with men are sinful because they are between them. Gay sex is not natural, it is lustful. And therefor sinful.  

[Metanoeo]

Cyberpunk Hero

Quote:

It is admitted of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in temporary ceremonial legislation.

Oh, what the [censored by guild rules].

Right there. You have no basis for your assumption that homosexuality is any different from any of the other temporary ceremonial laws. Your nonsense about "points to or anticipates Christ" is completely transparent, and the rule about the death penalty is completely made-up and ignores several other laws that also call for the death penalty but are not followed today.

You are ignoring my whole argument and forcing on one part that you are only able to respond with criticism. Thanks for the opinion however my argument stands on the grounds of theological thinking. If you have a argument then post it.

Cyberpunk Hero

Quote:

Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual Acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual Acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual Acts in the Old Testament.

Trying to use arsenokoités to validate your argument is, at best, tenuous, and at worst completely fallacious.

Simply taking the compounds of the word apart to decipher its meaning is ridiculous, as the English language itself shows. Furthermore, later usage of the term (since Paul invented it, all other uses fall under this category) suggest it has origins in economic exploitation via sexual means.

Ridiculous? You got anything better to post?

Cyberpunk Hero

And as far as Romans goes, that entire chapter has been addressed recently and succinctly. To boil down the counterargument once more: Paul says that women are performing sinful sexual acts with women and men with men. That is not the same thing as saying that it's sinful for women/men to have sex with women/men.

Have you ever heard of exegetical theology? Truly, if you believe you have a argument then post it with detail and reason. Please don't give me summaries.