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 5 Comments on this Response. See all 401 Comments on this Question.
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.