To Answer That Interesting Question, We Must Understand What Sin Is
According to the Bible, "sin is the transgression of the law" [of God], 1 John 3:4. And, "All unrighteousness is sin" 1 John 5:17. So sin is breaking God's law and all unrighteousness - anything that is not righteous.
One wonders how self-sacrificing love between committed, faithful, same sex partners could ever be described as unrighteous.[1]
When Jesus speaks of sin, He links idle words we say and what we think in our hearts, with sin.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matthew 12:36
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man." Matthew 15:18
Paul tells us: "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat [forbidden foods], because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23. According to this verse, anything we do that goes against our conscience (causes us to doubt), is sin.
Because Jesus makes it clear that how we treat others plays a large part in whether or not we are living in sin, the correct answer to the question about homosexuality lies in Matthew 22:36-40 and Romans 13:4-10. In those verses, Jesus and Paul sum up Old Testament law in two succinct and pithy tests.
1. Do I love God with all my heart, soul, strength and mind?
2. Do I love my neighbor as myself?
Jesus never asked or answered the question, Is homosexuality a sin?
Instead, Jesus focused the attention of His listeners on their own lives. He forced them to confront their own shortcomings when measured by the standard of God's word.
Because God's written word never condemns committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships, we can honestly answer, No, homosexuality is not a sin.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
As Robert A. Heinlein pointed out, "There is only one real sin; hurting someone else unnecessarily. Everything else is invented nonsense."
I have waited for years for the religious reich or anyone else to explain exactly how homosexuality threatens anyone. They are all strangely silent when that question is asked or fall back on religious statements like, "It's an abomination (they love that word) to god ." That's not an argument, it's an opinion and an unfounded one at that.
While I am not gay , I have known many gay people and generally, find they are a kinder, more trustworthy group than most. Particularly more so than theists.
If freedom means anything, it is the liberty to tell others what they do not want to hear.
If you believe in God, and what the Bible says, then you have to recognize that God clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. He says in Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." And in Leviticus 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act[.]" And the Apostle Paul wrote in Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Though Jesus does not directly address the issue of homosexuality in the New Testament, He does speak about sexual immorality in Mark chapter 7 when He says, "What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder , adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you."
it is clearly spelled out that in the eyes of God, it is a sin. It's in both the New and Old Testaments. I don't see how you can be a Baptist minister and deny this?
Considering God indicated, that He so hates and despisees the practice of lying with same sex and even animals that he made a point of stating so. How do you think those who ptactices such will be received at and dealt with at the judgement?
The question at the beginning is flawed. Homosexuality is not a sin. Homosexual acts are. The book of Leviticus certainly outlines God's teaching on this.
Is homosexuality disordered? Yes. Does that make those who suffer from same-sex attractions sinful or less human -- NO. There are many great organizations, such as Courage, which help men and women to live chaste lives in spite of their same-sex attractions. There are psychologists who are successful with therapy for this disorder. Gay and Lesbian people often don't like hearing this, but same-sex attraction can be, and often is overcome.
I don't believe the Bible ever relates to "Adam and Steve" It does however relate to "Adam and Eve." Because someone claims to be a minister it does not qualify that individual to give his personal definition of what "sin" is. It's a personal belief. During my lifetime I heard so many different explainations and definitions on this one word until I finally took my mother's advice and found my own answers in the way I believe.
Romans 1:24 - Therefore God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the TRUTH of God for a LIE and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also 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.
This is an unnatural lifesytle.. and it states that they exchanged the truth for a lie. How much more specific could the scriptures be?
Crash wrote:
"This is an unnatural lifesytle.. and it states that they exchanged the truth for a lie. How much more specific could the scriptures be?"
The problem with your viewpoint is that you begin with two false presuppositions.
a. That Paul is talking about committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships in Romans 1:26-27
b. That Paul agrees with your twenty first century viewpoint on homosexuality.
Paul is not dealing with homosexuality as such in Romans 1. That is not at all his point. His argument is about IDOLATRY and he mentions shrine prostitution as evidence of idolatry.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
It does refer to many parts of Idolatry in Romans 1, but even so it describes same gender sex and attractions as "vile affections." That means God did not approve if it was called "vile." Another point, "lusting" is a sin. If homosexuals are lusting towards another, they are sinning as well.
The point I am trying to make, is that "homosexuality" is never described as "good" in the bible, meaning we should consider not being involved in it. It is considered as vile, impurity (v. 24), to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves (v. 25). He gave them up because they we committing idolatry to many things, including other men and women.
Their is due penalty for their error in practicing their lusts for the same gender (v. 26-27).
That is why homosexuality is a sin. It involves practicing the "opposite" and "unnatural" ways that are against the way God created us to function.
quiet4no1 wrote:
[Romans 1] "describes same gender sex and attractions as 'vile affections.'"
In the Bible, there are a number of passages about heterosexual rape - Genesis 34 and Judges 19 and 2 Samuel 13. No thoughtful person would conclude that heterosexuality is wrong based on Bible passages about rape.
Just so, no thoughtful person would conclude that committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships are wrong based on a Bible passage about idolatry and shrine prostitution (Romans 1). When pagans engage in same sex activity to worship the fertility goddess, that cultic activity never provides an honest basis to condemn committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
In reality, your conclusion is at odds with the cultural, doctrinal, historical and scriptural context. The context is shrine prostitution - pagan sexual worship of the fertility goddess - not lesbianism and not homosexuality in the sense of loving, committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
One need not be gay or lesbian to understand that Cybele was THE leading fertility goddess in first century Rome.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_cybele.html
The context of Romans 1 is not now and never has been lesbianism or homosexuality.
The context of Romans 1 is idolatry and the sexual practices which spring from idolatry.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-And-Shrine-Prostitution.html
Your idea only states you do not believe homosexuality is wrong. You hold the ground that you and only people who believe like you are "thoughtful." I guess it is fair to conclude you believe heterosexual rape is "okay" ans not a sin as well.
You obviously haven't studied the subject of sin period. I have a good link to my page that I wrote, regarding to what sin is, check it out here:
http://innovationapologetics.blogspot.com/2008/09/sin-what-is-it.html
Yes, Romans 1 is talking about idolatry. Because people idolized many things and not God, he gave them over to their "FOOLISH" desires: same gender attractions. He also described the same gender relationships as "vile" and "unnatural." If something is unnatural, it means God did not create it for thaat purpose in nature. So homosexual practices are not something God intended to happen.
Something that is considered bad and unnatural by God can not be good. He gave those people who were idolators over to their sinful desires, such as homosexual practices.
Yes there was worshipping of sex goddesses. Homosexuality does stem from idolatry, because men and women were idolizing not only sex godesses, but others of the same sex. Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
Also, a homosexual "partnership" would be very sinful regardless, because sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and marriage was to be between a man and woman, not two males or two females.
I am not judgemental towards homosexuality, as it is just one of many sins, although it can be more emotional and harder to overcome. There are more passages on homosexuality is wrong throughout scripture:
1) Lev. 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
2) Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
3)1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Now hmmm... it seems to me that homosexualityis clearly stated as "wrong" and against the will of God. Anything contrary to the will of God is "Sin."
Your turn
Upon reflection, it might be helpful if I briefly address the verses you quoted.
Lev 18:22 and 20:13 - These verses were NEVER about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Abomination.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Molech.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Cult-Prostitutes.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Leviticus.html
I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 - These verses were never about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships.
Malakoi
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Malakoi.html
Arsenokoitai
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html
Hope this is helpful in your continued study of these interesting texts.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
They are never about "committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex relationships." That is what you believe correct.
So I guess I would have to prove that sex before marriage is a sin first (because it was talking about men and women lying with the same gender). Then I would have to go into detail about how God created man and woman to procreate, not man and man or woman and woman. Finally I would have to show you that a "Godly" relationship includes a male and female (not 2 of same gender).
This is all evdent from scripture, yet you ignore those points.
You told me that Lev. 18:22 is not about those committed relationships between male and male...correct? Yet this is what it states: "Lev. 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
It states that ANYONE that lies with a male as one lies with a female is an abomination. Lets define abomination: loathsome, hateful, wicked, or vile, forbidden, and unclean.
It is telling everyone that no one should lie with the same gender, because it is unclean, forbidden, vile, wicked, etc.
So you can't take out those who participate in this act because they are more "committed" than others. Christians practicing sex before marriage can not say, "We are committed, so it must not be sinning." It is sin no matter how committed we are. Same goes for God's view on homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:9 - the word you gave me, Arsenokoitai, translates in the Greek as a "sodomite: one who practices sodomy."
"Sodomy is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality. When used in a religious context, it has a negative connotation (wikipedia)."
In many translations, the word is translated as "effeminate" which according to Merriam-Webster, its defined as: "having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner."
That would mean that any man who "has feminine qualities untypical of a man, and that does not act in a manly manner nor look like one in appearance, shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The reason it is translated as "homosexual" is because the word "effeminate" describes a homosexual man. It also says those who practice this lifestyle of sodomy, which is exactly what homosexuals do, correct?
**You need to either rebuttal me with your own words and beliefs, not 20 web pages that I am not going to read. Why be debating if you are just going to tell us to read? If you can't make your point by using scripture and logic, then you shouldn't be considered an expert on the topic.
quiet4no1-
Four things are clear.
1. You are determined not to inform yourself by reading the previous posts in this debate which explain the verses you quoted.
2. You are determined not to read anything that contradicts your private opinion.
3. You have no interest in learning about the cultural, doctrinal, historical and religious context of the scriptures you quote.
4. You are unable to add anything to the discussion except your uninformed opinion.
You closed with this:
"You need to either rebuttal me with your own words and beliefs, not 20 web pages that I am not going to read. Why be debating if you are just going to tell us to read? If you can't make your point by using scripture and logic, then you shouldn't be considered an expert on the topic."
Every point you've made has been answered and rebutted in my previous posts in this discussion, using scripture and logic.
That you refuse to read ["I am not going to read"] scriptural answers and demand that everything must be presented again is odd.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Torah.html
quiet4no1-
Have you taken the time to read the rest of this discussion? Your last post reads like you have no idea of the preceding discussion.
Most of the material I previously cited can be found on this page, with the many Links provided there.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/My-Coming-Out.html
Suffice it to say that in previous posts, I have more than adequately covered each of the scriptures you quoted.
For you too quote them again, as if they can only be negative statements about committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships is less than thoughtful.
None of the verses you cited even mention homosexuality in Hebrew and Greek. You are reading your twenty first century notions into texts that are 2000 - 3400 years old.
In some English versions, (I Corinthians 6:9 for example), translators have inserted a false translation, using the word, homosexual, when that word was never in the original.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html
I encourage you to do additional prayerful study.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Jesus-On-Hell.html
Let me show you what Romans 1 says:
So homosexuality is viewed as "alright" in this passage? That definitely is not the case. Here it says: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
So it states that "homosexuality" is not "NATURAL" and that the men also received the "Due Penalty" for their error (men and women committing "unatural" relations with same gender).
It then goes onto say: " 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 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."
Here it tells us that those who practiced "unnatural relations" with same gender, were filled with unrighteousness, evil, malice, etc. It says they also not only commit all these acts, but give approval to others to do the same. It says the "God's decree" to those who practice such things is to "die."
So again, explain to me.... why is homosexuality not a sin? Do you know what the term sin means. Sin is essentially "rebellion against God." If God says that practicing same gender sex is against his decree, which means those who practice are "rebelling against God's decree," therefore that means they are "sinning."
It is simple logic.
Dear quiet4no1:
Reading into the text what Paul did not say (a universal prohibition of homosexuality) is called eisogesis - wrongly interpreting the text. That kind of faulty interpretation is unworthy of Christians who love the word of God.
This Link will assist our mutual understanding of Romans 1.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Against-Nature.html
Paul's words to the Christian community in ancient Rome come from his knowledge of the first century world in which he lived. His carefully tailored argument against idolatry (not lesbianism and not homosexuality) in Romans 1 is set in the specific context of Gentile and Jewish history, complete with first century illustrations familiar to his first century readers.
Paul’s readers were intimately acquainted, as we are not, with Greek, Jewish and Roman culture and the shrine prostitution which permeated those ancient cultures.
Is it honest to deny the influence of fertility goddess cults which flourished in first century Rome?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1-And-Homosexuality.html
Paul Talks About Gentile Idolatry In Romans 1, Not Homosexuals And Not Lesbians.
"For this cause [idolatry] God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:26-27
Idolatry (not lesbianism and not homosexuality) is the hook that catches Gentiles and Jews and allows Paul to declare everyone guilty before a holy God, Romans 3:23.
Idolatry, not homosexuality and not lesbianism, is the specific context of Paul's argument in Romans 1.
Shrine prostitution is certainly how Paul's first century readers understood his words in Romans 1 and that is how we ought to understand Romans.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Saved.html
Above you have stated that because of idolatry, God gave them unto their vile affections. What were the vile affections? It explains that next: women and men exchanging in unnatural relations with the same gender.
The word "vile" is defined as:
1. Loathsome; disgusting: vile language.
2. Unpleasant or objectionable: vile weather. See Synonyms at offensive.
3.
a. Contemptibly low in worth or account; second-rate.
b. Of mean or low condition.
4. Miserably poor and degrading; wretched: a vile existence.
5. Morally depraved; ignoble or wicked: a vile conspiracy.
Obviously, something that is "vile" is not GOOD.
In this passage, God gives them over to their own selfish and bad desires (such as homosexuality) because they have committed idolatry.
Because God gave them over to homosexuality because of idolatry does not make it "right." They were choosing to worship themselves and creatures instead of God, so he gave them over to their other bad desires.
The context is about what God did because of men and women idolizing things other than him. He gave them over to their "foolish," "unnatural," and "vile" desires. Homosexuality was one of those desires.
You make an error when you state that sins is not abiding by the law... it clearly states that a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. God clearly states that with simple language, yet you ignored that part of the law. If God says something, it is what He says it is because He says it is. We need go no further on the topic.
I have heard the argument before that type of homosex referred to in Paul's Letters refer not to modern day stable and loving gay relationships but to cultic temple worship and prostitution.
Yet, according to the writing of Plato, which comes from the same general time period, stable, loving and long term gay relationships existed at the time. According to your point of view, did Paul simply not address those types of gay relationships? Was he ignorant of them or do you think he condoned them through his silence? Do you acknowledge the possibility that, given the fact that stable and loving gay relationships existed and were known about at the time, Paul was referring to all sorts of gay relationships -whether they be temple sex, long term love or any kind in between?