Is Homosexuality a Sin?

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

There has been no shortage of controversy as gay people assume increased roles as parents and married couples in our society, but almost nowhere has this conflict been more intense than in the church. Many religious leaders have condemned homosexuality, calling it a sin or even an abomination, but for millions of gay people around the world, there is nothing inherently sinful about their sexual preferences.

Next question in Religion in Society

This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


You are seeing 25 Comments on this Argument. See all 401 Comments on this Question.
Regarding Argument
Seven Flawed Arguments
- From Rick Brentlinger
No Side
By Rick Brentlinger - Gay Christian 101

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sfgiantsfanmike
    Leviticus 18:22

    Start with verse one of that chapter, where are temples mentioned? Maybe it's meaning is hidden in the hebrew, but in English it is not mentioned.

    God is taking that chapter/time to address how we should not behave sexually, and then specifically mentions men laying with men... HELLO! If this was football, that would be a telegraphed pass...

    - sfgiantsfanmikeUS September 11, 2008 7:57AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Rick Brentlinger
      Please read Leviticus 18:3, 21-22 & 20:2-5, 13, 23



      George Rawlinson, 1812-1902, in History of Phoenicia, written in 1889, describes Molech as a god worshiped by the Canaanites and Phoenicians. Here is Rawlinson's description of shrine prostitutes.

      “At the head of the Pantheon stood a god and a goddess, Baal (Molech) and Ashtoreth... As Baal was the embodiment of the generative principle in nature, so was Ashtoreth of the receptive and productive principle. She was the great nature goddess, the Magna Mater, regent of the stars, queen of heaven, giver of life, and source of woman's fecundity...

      [Canaanite religion was notable for] the prevalence of licentious orgies [involving shrine prostitutes] and of human sacrifice... Early rabbis describe the image of Moloch as a human figure with a bull's head and outstretched arms; and the account which they give is confirmed by what Diodorus relates of the Carthaginian Kronos...

      “‘In the worship of Astarte [Ashtoreth, the ancient Canaanite fertility goddess]

      prostitution of women, and of effeminate men [shrine prostitutes], played the same part that child murder did in the worship of Baal...

      [Pagan worshipers believed] no service more acceptable could be rendered a deity than that of unchastity... Thus lust itself became a service of the gods...’

      One fruit of this system was the extraordinary institution of the Galli. [Rawlinson equates the Galli [shrine prostitutes] with the KJV’s ‘sodomites’ - the ‘qedesha’ of the Hebrew text.]

      The Galli were men, who made themselves as much like women as they could, and offered themselves for purposes of unnatural lust [unnatural in the sense of not procreative] to either sex [shrine prostitutes]. Their existence may be traced in Israel and Judah, [I Kings 14:24, 15:12] as well as in Syria and Phœnicia.

      At great festivals, under the influence of strong excitement, amid the din of flutes and drums and wild songs, a number of the male devotees would snatch up swords or knives, which lay ready for the purpose, throw off their garments, and coming forward with a loud shout, proceed to castrate themselves openly...

      They joined with the priests and the sacred women at festival times in frenzied dances and other wild orgies, shouting, and cutting themselves [much like the prophets of Baal in I Kings 18:19, 28] on the arms, and submitting to be flogged one by another...”

      (from George Rawlinson, History of Phoenicia, 1889, Chapter XI.)

      http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

      - Rick BrentlingerUS September 11, 2008 3:18PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • sfgiantsfanmike
        18:3

        "According to the doing of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do, nor shall you walk in their ordinances."*

        I see where you are coming from when it comes to context, yet you forgot verse 4: "You shall observe My judgements and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the LORD (YHWH) your God."* This then lets us know we are not to walk in the ways of the world (Egypt, Canaan), but in His ways. That changes the context.

        I understand and knew about those practices, that they were destructive and the reason that the Canaanites were being purged (vomited) out of their land as well as the reason Egypt has never returned to the prominence it once had as the strongest nation; however, God specifically tells us to obey Him over the world, and what is the world telling us is okay now a days? Engage in sexual practices that would make the Canaanites blush and homosexuality. There is nothing new under the sun.
        *Verses are from New King James Version

        - sfgiantsfanmikeUS September 12, 2008 3:55AM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Rick Brentlinger
          It matters who is being addressed

          Leviticus addressed a particular historical and religious situation. That is why Leviticus is addressed to the children of Israel living under the Law.

          http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html

          1. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 1:2

          2. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 4:2

          3. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 11:2

          4. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying...” Lev 12:2

          5. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 15:2

          6. “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 17:2

          7. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 18:2

          8. “Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 19:2

          9. “Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel...” Lev 20:2

          10. “Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron...” Lev 21:1

          11. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 23:2

          12. “Command the children of Israel...” Lev 24:2

          13. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 25:2

          14. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them...” Lev 27:2.

          Remember Romans 6:14 -

          "You are not under the law but under grace..."

          http://www.gaychristian101.com/Torah-Observance.html

          - Rick BrentlingerUS September 12, 2008 7:54AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • sfgiantsfanmike
            Romans 1?

            Okay, first I want to say that you're bringing up good points and I respect that. If I'm coming off the wrong way (especially looking back at the HELLO comment), I appologize. I get a little to emphatic at times when disscussing the scriptures.

            Okay, so we're supposed to consider you is being addressed, so what about Romans 1? In verse 7 Paul states that he is addressing the saints, at least all the saints in Rome. Then in versus 18 to 32 he gives a long discourse on the "degeneration" of men who reject God. He calls men with men "shameful" and women leaving the natural use of the man. In this section he has nothing nice to say about the acts, and he is not addressing temples in the context but men in general.

            It seems we may be destined to disagree, yet I feel it is worth while to hear your thoughts.

            - sfgiantsfanmikeUS September 12, 2008 8:29AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • Rick Brentlinger
              How we determine what scripture means



              Before we can determine what scripture means for us today, we must understand what it meant for the people to whom it was originally given back then.

              In plainer words, what scripture means today is limited by what it meant back then.

              Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.

              Whatever meaning we assign to Paul's words has to have been a probable understanding in the first century.

              There are three areas which help us understand what Paul meant back then.

              1. The historical context. First century Rome was an idolatrous culture with hundreds of temples to pagan gods and goddesses. One fertility goddess in particular was Cybele, known as the Protectress of Rome.

              http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html

              2. The religious context. The most prominent goddess figure in first century Rome was Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess. Five worship sites honored her in Rome at the time Paul wrote Romans.

              Roman coins bearing Cybele's likeness were inscribed with the words, Mater Deum, Mother of the gods.

              Cybele was worshiped by castrated Galli priests who offered themselves sexually to male worshipers.

              This is what Paul describes in Romans 1, citing the Old Testament experience of Jews who had rebelled against God and practiced fertility goddess worship.

              3. The way Christians back then understood Paul's words in Romans 1.

              Aristides, preaching before the Roman Emperor Hadrian, AD 126, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.

              Justin Martyr, preaching around AD 150, linked Paul's words in Romans 1 to shrine prostitution.

              http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html

              To read Romans 1 today and say scripture is condemning a committed, faithful, non-cultic lesbian or gay partnership is to give the text a new meaning which was unknown to the original readers.

              And if it was unknown to the original readers, then that interpretation cannot be true because:

              Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.




              - Rick BrentlingerUS September 12, 2008 10:44AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: No

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Martin
                Anti-Gay?

                First off, let me say thank you for your thoughtful comments. I can see that you have really looked into this issue. I have read the article on Romans and Shine Prostitution and found it to be well-argued. Although, I am a little bothered by the use of the term anti-gay. I have read portions of Gagnon's book and he, like yourself, struggled with this issue. Early on in the book, he writes about his heartfelt struggle.

                When someone argues that homosexual practice is a sin, this does not make them anti-homosexual, or anti-anything. I have desperately struggled with this issue personally and for the sake of others. I would never characterize myself as anti-gay. As I grow closer to Jesus, I feel more and more his love for all people well up inside of me. I wish the church as a whole weren't homophobic. I wish I didn't have to hear people around me, most of whom are Christians, use "gay" and other words I won't mention, as derogatory comments. (When I am feeling bold, I gently correct them.) Sometimes I don't want to call myself a Christian because this associates me with some of the people who have incited hate-mongering against homosexuals. My heart aches over this struggle because I have personally been affected by it and I have met many others who have felt these affects as well.

                In the sending of his only son, Jesus Christ, God offered all people a saving relationship with himself. This is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant: "I will bless you and make you a great nation and through you all people will be blessed". In this fulfillment, the people of God became all those who accepted, believed in, and followed the one whom God sent, Jesus Christ. In the Mosaic or Sinai covenant, Israel was required to obey the Mosaic law in order to receive salvation. But in Christ, the people of God, all people, Jew and Gentile, were freed from the law and now received salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ by faith.

                So, to put it briefly, in Christ, God has removed the contractual obligation of the law and has offered a relationship. This never ceases to amaze me!! He wants to be in relationship with me!!

                - MartinUS September 14, 2008 9:07PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Martin
                What do we do in relationship?

                But what do we do in relationship? How do we treat our loved ones? People mess up in biblical interpretation when they either try to remove New Testament requirements of obedience or they once again put back on the "yoke of slavery" (the law) that they have been freed from. The fact is that true relationship demands love. Loving someone is wanting what's best for the person you love. What father or mother in their right minds, would want their child to do anything that would harm them?

                I often here people quote out of context Matthew 7 about not judging others. People respond indignantly when anyone challenges their beliefs or their choice of lifestyles and simply say, "didn't Jesus say not to judge." Well actually, in Matthew 7:5, Jesus tells us to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. What he is condemning is hypocrisy, not judging. In other words, he is condemning being "judgmental," not judging your brother or sister in Christ. Read the passage. It says, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." In other words, if you have taken the time to examine yourself and to deal with your own sin, you can then, and only then, more on to judging a brother or sister in Christ for their sin issues.

                But this must be done in love? Speak the truth in love and so on and so forth . . .


                - MartinUS September 14, 2008 9:08PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Martin
                Interpretation of Scripture

                You said Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. This is a true statement. However, Scripture can have a different application then it did back then. You seem to be very concerned with the cultural context of cult prostitution in ancient Rome. And you seem to define "idolatry" in a very narrow sense. But Paul does not do this. Go on to Romans 1:28 when he begins to describe all manner of idolatry (which is simply worshipping anything besides creator God--today this could include worship of another person, worship of self, worship of money, worship of television, etc.):

                "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (ESV).

                So, is Paul still only talking about cult prostitutes here? He seems to be talking about everyone. I am thinking about the times I have envied, or gossiped, or was disobedient to my parents. The question I am asking is: why would Paul have switched so rapidly from talking about a specific group of people to talking about everyone?

                First and foremost, we must understand what Paul was trying to say with his words. What was the author intended meaning. This is primary. It is strongly related to how the original audience would have understood Paul's letter, but they are not the same thing. You seem to have given precedence to the cultural context of the passage over and above the context of the passage in the letter itself. Both are equally important. I would argue that placing a passage within the context of its surrounding passages, within the context of the letter itself, and within the context of the Bible as a whole is first and foremost in biblical interpretation. Cultural context is our aide along the way, but if our findings do not fit the context of the surrounding passages, then we need to go back to the drawing board and reassess what Paul was trying to say.

                What do you think?

                - MartinUS September 14, 2008 9:10PM

                Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Lux
    Part (2)

    "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

    Scripture as we know it - is only scripture because the whole book (all 66 chapters) flow together in a common theme. Therefore, topics that talk about man and woman and man and woman being the exclusive partnership that God blesses (marriage) are crucial. I'm sorry to see that you've not mentioned it(Mark 10:6-9) in your Seven Flawed Arguments. It may be that you cannot explain the matter, or that it doesn't flow with your interpretation of what you feel Scripture is saying.

    Scripture is clear here, what God has joined let no man separate. Now you may rightfully say that the context in which Jesus elaborates is a context of a discussion of adultery. (see Mark 10:2-4)

    "2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3"What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

    However, it is within the context of speaking of adultery that we understand what God has put together. God has put together man and woman, this is the pure blessing of God.

    I quote "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This argument says God will only bless marriages exactly like Adam and Eve, although God never makes that assertion in the Bible. For example, only two chapters after Adam and Eve, we discover a polygamous marriage in Genesis 4:19, on man with two women."

    However this assertion is not correct. He makes that assertion in Mark 10:6-9. Also, just because a listing is in the Bible does not authenticate itself because it is listed, nor because it appears to be blessed. What do I mean?

    God created man and woman to be the perfect union, and when we read about the union with the man and two women, it does not say that God blessed that union. We do know that this happened after sin entered into the world and was not the joining that God entitled for humans (see Mark 10:7). Therefore, just because you have a listed (correctly as it's mentioned in the Bible) a union between man and two women, doesn't mean it's authenticated by the Bible.

    Your statement about (4) Matthew 19:3-12 is also quite incorrect. Why so?

    First, Jesus doesn't make an exception for heterosexual marriage. Jesus only replies to his disciples assertion in verse 10 that it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn't say it is better not to marry a woman but instead a man. Actually, there are no contradictions to marriage between a man and a woman, only Jesus' response to his disciples. His response details why it's better not to marry.

    Second, you are right about three classes of eunuchs, but understand this - that a eunuch is one who has sexual organs removed (castration). And note the three classes, one born without sexual organs v.12, and one made that way by men (or humans) and finally one who has renounced marriage or become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven(for ministry or the work of the clergy). There is no mention about exceptions for the case of homosexuality here, it appears to be your own interpretation.

    - LuxCA October 25, 2008 8:31AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Lux
    Part (3)

    The exception to being joined in a union that is blessed by God (as referred to in Mark 10:5-9 or Matthew 19:4-6) is not an exception about the type of union but about remaining single. There are three classes of people who it is better for them not to marry (enter a union blessed by God). It simply means being single. There is no inclusion for those who are not inclined as you define - toward heterosexual marriage.

    "11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

    Your point(7) about Jude 7 has been answered in another post by another post-er, strange flesh is a statement about relationships with angelic beings. So I won't elaborate about it.

    Your arguments seem well thought out and I appreciate the depth to which you've gone to illustrate them. However, you've missed using Scripture as a whole, in it's appropriate context.

    God is very clear about marriage, and I've made the due change in my life. I've listened to a lot of what society as a whole today deems as truth, but it doesn't mean that society is correct.

    However, God is a good God, he has given anyone the opportunity to decide for himself/herself.

    If I can choose no longer to be a homosexual, ask God for forgiveness of sin and am now entered in a marriage relationship - anyone can with God's guidance.

    I've only tackled some of your arguments, since I've noted that other post-ers have rebutted your other arguments.

    God bless.

    - LuxCA October 25, 2008 8:32AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Objection
Reference to Jude 7
- From Exodus International
Yes Side
By Exodus International - Addressing Homosexual Issues

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Response
Who Is Now Posting For Exodus?
- From Rick Brentlinger
No Side
By Rick Brentlinger - Gay Christian 101

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • reinahoward
    Because I care...

    All the Scriptures below remind us that we have a sinful nature, and because of this sinful nature we have inclinations of different kinds. (This is why Dr. Dobson mentioned that in some cases people do not choose to feel same sex attraction) To have an inclination does not mean that we cannot use our God given free will/choice to choose what is right; our ability to reason is not in vain, it is because God, our Creator, did not want us to be like robots; He tells us through the Scriptures what is pure, noble and right, but it is up to us what we choose, or how we want to interpret His word to fit our sinful natures and try to silence our consciences. No matter how many want to justify sin, in the end, sin is sin, and each one will receive what is due according to his/her deeds.
    *Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. Romans 8:5
    *Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:8
    *Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. Romans 8:12
    *For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Romans 8:13
    *Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lust. EVEN THEIR WOMEN EXCHANGED NATURAL RELATIONS FOR UNNATURAL ONES. IN THE SAME WAY MEN ALSO ABANDONED NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN AND WERE INFLAMED WITH LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION. ROMANS 1:24-27
    *“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32
    *But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

    - reinahowardUS September 25, 2008 1:28PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Lux
    Seven Flawed Arguments are Flawed (1)

    Rick,

    Thank you for your comments, which are quite well thought out. I have to say that even though they are well thought out, I disagree with them. I've found that your arguments ignore a common theme in scripture. I've also noted that you've not mentioned key passages about sexual relationships and marriage in their appropriate context. But before doing so, let me be specific about my views.

    Before I say anything else, I'd like to say that I am a former homosexual. I believe that the Bible dictates sin as sin, but does not condemn the person. What do I mean? John 3:16 writes that God loved the world (humans) and sent his son to die. God doesn't say that sin is acceptable, but provides the solution for it. God loves every person, and wants the best for them. In the same way whether a person is gay or not should not have a bearing on how God loves them, this according to scripture. However, at the same time, Scripture is crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin, and all sin needs to be dealt with, just as I have dealt with mine(1 John 1:8-10).

    In your Seven Flawed Arguments you have not mentioned Jesus sayings in their correct form: (Mark 10:6-9 NIV)

    - LuxCA October 25, 2008 8:30AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • trutthseeker
      EUNUCH DEFINED

      Mathew 19:

      4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
      5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

      Here Jesus establishes the obligation for a man to marry and be faithful to one wife.

      9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

      This reaffirms the requirement of monogamy.

      10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

      The disciples find this rule difficult to accept.

      11: But he said unto them, All (men) cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

      Jesus gives them an option. In this option he says that there are those that cannot accept this rule (to marry a woman and be monogamous). It is important to note here that he does not say “will not”, “would rather not”, “chose not to”, but he said “cannot”. This would imply that he was referring to people incapable (mentally, physically, or both) from living by the rules of men.

      12A (first category): For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:

      I suspect this means all those incapable of consummating a relationship with a woman for whatever reason. (hermaphrodite or gay).

      12B (second category): and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men:

      We pretty well all agree that these are actual eunuchs.

      12C (third category): and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

      The church insists that these are simply celibate priests.
      Logically neither of the first two groups would have any interest in women, so they would by their very nature be celibate.
      The problem is that there is nothing said or done up to the moment that Christ said this that would indicate that celibacy was a requirement or even a virtue in priests. In fact, all indications are that it was disallowed. How do you “make yourself a Eunuch”? To be a eunuch 2000 years ago meant more than simple celibacy.
      What Jesus said in Mathew 19 is completely self contained and can only be read literally. Well once again lets look at verse:

      5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

      No doubt about it, if you were capable of consummating a relationship with a woman, you were required to be married. More importantly, if you were a man you were required to be married. To declare yourself a eunuch was to declare yourself uninterested in women, a eunuch, a non man. This was understood readily 2000 years ago, but modern society has a hard time grasping it.
      Having said this there were eunuchs that were allowed into the temple (natural eunuchs who were anatomically correct).
      If Jesus was not married he was a eunuch by his own definition. He was anatomically correct because he regularly entered the temple. He had to be a natural eunuch (or married, one or the other).
      Only by declaring themselves eunuchs were they exempt from the requirement of marriage. In fact, they were exempt from all rules pertaining only to “men”. The reason was that they were not considered to be “men”. Rules quoted about man being with man did not apply to eunuchs because eunuchs were not considered to be men. The sin was not being gay, but pretending to be men while engaging in gay behavior.
      It is most likely that the natural eunuch was the first category:

      12A: For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb:

      and likely included homosexuals.
      This group:

      12C: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

      If Jesus was not married, then he was a eunuch. If his genitalia was mutilated he could not enter the temple. If the church’s definition of “born that way" was hermaphrodites, then Jesus could not be either “born that way” or “made that way”. This only leaves “made themselves eunuchs” as an option for Jesus. “Made themselves eunuchs” can only mean one of two things---actually had themselves castrated, or had no interest in women. Either way, in Jesus time, it was a renunciation of manhood at the least.
      In that the church has painted him as celibate, they have painted themselves into a corner.
      It all ends with:

      12D: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

      Translate---He that can be married should do so, and he who is a eunuch should accept that. You are what you are.

      - trutthseekerCA November 15, 2008 2:09AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag Side: Yes

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • visavismeyou
    Actually,

    "Your statements are mutually exclusive. You cannot logically claim that our modern concept of heterosexual is a recent development and then argue that this "recent development" is exclusively defined in the Bible (2000 to 3400 years ago) as "between a man and a woman" (heterosexuality)."


    These statements are not mutually exclusive. You have changed contexts and set up a 'straw man' to knock down. In western culture, the concept of hetero and homosexuality is quite a recent development. However, the context of this claim is that the -->concept

    Furthermore, the use of the 'definition of heterosexuality', as used by the exodus poster, was used to show that heterosexuality is defined in the bible and that all other sex acts are forbidden. I do not see you denying this.

    - visavismeyouUS October 9, 2009 11:32PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • visavismeyou
    Unclear

    It is unclear to me your intentions for citing the love between Jonathan and David. I've read these interactions many times in many translations and I've yet to see anything that displays a committed homosexual relationship. I can see how it is easily misunderstood. Differentiating between philia and eros is critical. I see philia quite readily throughout the bible betwee two men or two women , I have yet to see eros between two men celebrated in the bible.

    - visavismeyouUS October 9, 2009 11:41PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag Side: Yes

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Is Homosexuality a Sin?

Loading
  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Loading
  • Rick Brentlinger
    Rick Brentlinger is a Bible believing Independent Baptist minister. He has served as a Church Planting Missionary, Bible Institute Instructor and Pastor at... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Loading
Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.