• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

HOMOSEXUALITY: What the Bible Does & Does Not Say

Pah

Uber all member
http://www.baptistwatch.org/content/notasin.html

HOMOSEXUALITY: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness
What the Bible Does & Does Not Say

HOMOSEXUALITY & THE CHURCH:
The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever." All of God's promises are intended for every human being. This includes gay men and lesbians. How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and persecuted people who are homosexual!

We are all created with powerful needs for personal relationships. Our quality of life depends upon the love we share with others, whether family or friends, partners or peers. Yet, lesbians and gay men facing hostile attitudes in society often are denied access to healthy relationships. Jesus Christ calls us to find ultimate meaning in life through a personal relationship with our Creator. This important spiritual union can bring healing and strength to all of our human relationships.

Not a Sin, Not a Sickness
For many centuries, the Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality was very negative: sex was for procreation, not for pleasure; women and slaves were considered property to be owned by males; and many expressions of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered sinful. Such tradition often continues to influence churches today. Many teach that women should be subordinate to men, continue to permit forms of discrimination against peoples of color, and condemn homosexuals. They say that all homosexual acts are sinful, often referring to their interpretation of
scripture.

Other churches today are influenced by a century of psychoanalytic thought promoted through a powerful minority in the field of medicine. They see homosexuality as some kind of sickness. Although this view has now been soundly discredited by the medical profession, some churches and clergy continue to be influenced by the idea. They say that homosexuals are "imperfect" and in need of "healing."

The good news is that, since 1968, when Metropolitan Community Church was founded, the emergence of a strong lesbian and gay community, and the conclusions of new scientific studies on homosexuality have forced the Christian Church to reexamine these issues. A growing number of biblical and theological scholars now recognize that Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted - just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!

ABOUT THE BIBLE
The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand years recounting the history of God's relationship with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in several languages, embraces many literary forms, and reflects cultures very different from our own. These are important considerations for properly understanding the Bible in its context. There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian denominations, all of which use the same Bible. Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other Christians are not really Christians at all! Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.

Biblical interpretation and theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!

New Information Refutes Old Ideas
What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific information, social changes, and personal experience are perhaps the greatest forces for change in the way we interpret the Bible and develop our beliefs. Scientific awareness of homosexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century.

Most Christian churches, including Metropolitan Community Church, believe the Bible was inspired by God and provides a key source of authority for the Christian faith. Therefore, what the Bible teaches on any subject, including sexuality, is of great significance. The problem, however, is that sometimes the Bible says very little about some subjects; and popular attitudes about those matters are determined much more by other sources, which are then read into the biblical statements. This has been particularly true of homosexuality. But fortunately, recent scholarship refutes many previous assumptions and conclusions.

GENESIS 19:1-25

What was the sin of Sodom? Some "televangelists" carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of "homosexuality." Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, a careful look at Scripture
corrects such ignorance.

Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that "all the people from every quarter" surround Lot's house demanding the release of his visitors so "we might know them." The Hebrew word for "know" in this case, yadha, usually means "have thorough knowledge of." It could also express intent to examine the visitors' credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author's intended meaning, it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape.

Horrified at this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot attempts to protect the visitors by offering his two daughters to the angry crowd, a morally outrageous act by today's standards. The people of Sodom refuse, so the angels render them blind. Lot and his family are then rescued by the angels as the cities are destroyed.

Several observations are important. First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?

What was the Sin of Sodom?
EZEKIAL 16:48-50 states it clearly: The people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols. The sins of injustice and idolatry plague every generation. We stand under the same judgment if we create false gods or treat others with injustice.

LEVITICUS 18:22 & 20:13

Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals." Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament
meaning and denies a New Testament message. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chose people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

Hebrew religion, characterized by the revelation of one God, stood in continuous tension with the religion of the surrounding Canaanites who worshipped the multiple gods of fertility cults. Canaanite idol worship, which featured female and male cult prostitution as noted in Deuteronomy 23:17, repeatedly compromised Israel's loyalty to God. The Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute, qadesh, is mistranslated "sodomite" in some versions of the Bible.

What is an "Abomination"?
An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry, as in Ezekiel, where it occurs numerous times. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.

Rituals and rules found in the Old Testament were given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. But, as stated in Galatians 3:22-25, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. By faith we live in Jesus Christ, not in Leviticus. To be sure, ethical concerns apply to all cultures and peoples in every age. Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith.


Continued in next post
 

Pah

Uber all member
ROMANS 1:24-27

Most New Testament books, including the four Gospels, are silent on same-sex acts, and Paul is the only author who makes any reference to the subject. The most negative statement by Paul regarding same-sex acts occurs in Romans 1:24-27 where, in the context of a larger argument on the need of all people for the gospel of Jesus Christ, certain homosexual behavior is given as an example of the "uncleanness" of idolatrous Gentiles.

Does this passage refer to all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers? Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors. They would also have been aware of tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

Romans 1:26 is the only statement in the Bible with a possible reference to lesbian behavior, although the specific intent of this verse is unclear. Some authors have seen in this passage a reference to women adopting a dominant role in heterosexual relationships. Given the repressive cultural expectations placed on women in Paul's time, such a meaning may be possible.

The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.

I CORINTHIANS 6:9 & I TIMOTHY 1:10

Any consideration of New Testament statements on same-sex acts must carefully view the social context of the Greco-Roman culture in which Paul ministered. Prostitution and pederasty (sexual relationships of adult men with boys) were the most commonly known male same-sex acts.

In I Corinthians 6:9, Paul condemns those who are "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind," as translated in the King James version. Unfortunately, some new translations are worse, rendering these words "homosexuals." Recent scholarship unmasks the homophobia behind such mistranslations. The first word - malakos, in the Greek text-which has been translated "effeminate" or "soft," most likely refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control. The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but never with reference to sexuality.

The second word, arsenokoitai, occurs once each in I Corinthians and I Timothy, but nowhere else in other literature of the period. It is derived from two Greek words, one meaning, "males" and the other "beds", a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Other Greek words were commonly used to describe homosexual behavior but do not appear here. The larger context of I Corinthians 6 shows Paul extremely concerned with prostitution, so it is very possible he was referring to male prostitutes. But many experts now attempting to translate these words have reached a simple conclusion: their precise meaning is uncertain.

No Law Against Love:
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . against such there is no law.

One thing is abundantly clear, as Paul stated in Galatians 5:14:
"...the whole Law is fulfilled in one statement,
'You shall love your neighbor as yourself".


INSIGHTS FROM OTHER BIBLE SCHOLARS:

"The homosexuality the New Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background." - Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." - Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament, Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

"The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature.' Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasure. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations." John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"A close reading of Paul's discussion of homosexual acts in Romans 1 does not support the common modern interpretation of the passage. Paul did not deny the existence of a distinction between clean and unclean and even assumed that Jewish Christians would continue to observe the purity code. He refrained. However, from identifying physical impurity with sin or demanding that Gentiles adhere to that code." - William Countryman, Professor of New Testament, Church Divinity School of Pacific, Berkeley.

"The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters." - John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University, New Haven.

"Homosexuality; Not A Sin, Not A Sickness; What The Bible Does and Does Not Say" by Rev. Elder Don Eastman © 1990 Los Angeles Universal Fellowship Press
 

ThisShouldMakeSense

Active Member
I'm not gunna do the old 'God created adam and eve, not adam and steve!' cos that's weak. but i'd like to know what your views are with regards to the purpose of the first human couple in the Bible. what were they supposed to do?
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
The purpose of the first human couple the Biblical creation story is to explain where humans came from. Every ancient culture had a creation story, the Jews were no different. I'm not sure why we hold one in higher regard than another.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Maize said:
The purpose of the first human couple the Biblical creation story is to explain where humans came from. Every ancient culture had a creation story, the Jews were no different. I'm not sure why we hold one in higher regard than another.
Maize, I'm sure you know that to some people, the Bible is 'as is'; Take it or leave it. One thing I had never understood, until I joined the forum was the 'God created all we know in seven days' - no one had ever taught me that each day was a thousand years, in God's eyes.
I don't know if I missed out on Theology at school because of my circumstances, but I do not believe that there is - here in England anyway - enough scope to let those children who want to learn about Theology do so.:)
 

Pah

Uber all member
ThisShouldMakeSense said:
I'm not gunna do the old 'God created adam and eve, not adam and steve!' cos that's weak. but i'd like to know what your views are with regards to the purpose of the first human couple in the Bible. what were they supposed to do?
The first stated purpose was to care for the garden. It may be assumed with common sense that procreation was primary.

But that says nothing about homosexuality. About 50% of gay males are also fathers; the percentage of lesbians with children reaches much closer to heterosexual reproduction. In Japan almost 95% of gay or bisexual men have children. The arguement that homosexuals provide nuture is only a part of the picture - they produce children too!
 
(only read first page)

Not all of those arguments were very valid, but I did see some new ones that were good and it's always nice to see some stuff that disproves people who believe homosexuality is a sin.
 

ThisShouldMakeSense

Active Member
pah said:
The first stated purpose was to care for the garden. It may be assumed with common sense that procreation was primary.

But that says nothing about homosexuality. About 50% of gay males are also fathers; the percentage of lesbians with children reaches much closer to heterosexual reproduction. In Japan almost 95% of gay or bisexual men have children. The arguement that homosexuals provide nuture is only a part of the picture - they produce children too!
one more question if i may...what do you think of the terms 'adultery' and 'fornication'?
do you think that those things are outdated? cheers:)
 

Pah

Uber all member
ThisShouldMakeSense said:
one more question if i may...what do you think of the terms 'adultery' and 'fornication'?
do you think that those things are outdated? cheers:)
That would be subject of another thread. Would you like to start one?
 

ThisShouldMakeSense

Active Member
pah said:
That would be subject of another thread. Would you like to start one?
Not really... I don't think it's for another thread as such. i'd like to know your view on it as i think that homosexual relations in general are outside of marriage and therefore would constitute adultery or fornication. (Even between hetrosexuals, sex before marriage or with someone outside of the marriage bond, is wrong according to the Bible's standards. And i know some say those things are outdated too, but that would be another debate...) I know that marriage between homosexuals is becoming more common these days but i think it's safe to say that most are not.
I'm aware that adultery and fornication are strong words but inlight of what the scriptures say about it, i think it would be interesting to see what you think about that. Also, as this is a biblical debate, the bible makes no mention of same sex marriage being recognised by God. The scriptures only speak of marriage between a man and a woman and it was God who instituted it. So that throws up more questions on the 'right' of same sex marriage. I don't want to seem controversial or anything, i'd just like to further this discussion. thanks:)
 

Pah

Uber all member
ThisShouldMakeSense said:
Not really... I don't think it's for another thread as such. i'd like to know your view on it as i think that homosexual relations in general are outside of marriage and therefore would constitute adultery or fornication. (Even between hetrosexuals, sex before marriage or with someone outside of the marriage bond, is wrong according to the Bible's standards. And i know some say those things are outdated too, but that would be another debate...) I know that marriage between homosexuals is becoming more common these days but i think it's safe to say that most are not.
I'm aware that adultery and fornication are strong words but inlight of what the scriptures say about it, i think it would be interesting to see what you think about that. Also, as this is a biblical debate, the bible makes no mention of same sex marriage being recognised by God. The scriptures only speak of marriage between a man and a woman and it was God who instituted it. So that throws up more questions on the 'right' of same sex marriage. I don't want to seem controversial or anything, i'd just like to further this discussion. thanks:)
You answered you own question "Even between hetrosexuals, sex before marriage or with someone outside of the marriage bond, is wrong according to the Bible's standards." This off-shoot to the topic is finished.
 

anders

Well-Known Member
Several good point there.
Several observations are important. First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring to this account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality?
Very true. Nice to see the correct "all of Sodom's people". Far too many translations have "all the men of Sodom". The Hebrew noun clearly means "citizen".

And I'd like to add that the text, I think in order to prevent the misunderstanding that evolved anyway, TWICE points out that all of them were there, young and old. So, why would they want to get to know the visitors? Well, Sodom had recently been at war, so naturally the people were suspicious and wanted to know what kind of foreigners the foreigner Lot had allowed in the city.

Obviously I agree that yâda` "know" must be interpreted literally. The word occurs almost 950 times in the OT, and only some 10-14 times there is a possibility of a sexual mening. Out of those few cases, it is only in the parallell story in Judges that the actors, not the narrator, use it unambiguosly that way.

From Leviticus I learn that homosexual acts are no worse than eating crayfish.
 

TazMage

New Member
I really don't see what the big deal is...if it is a sin, then fine....I believe I read somewhere that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Did Jesus not sacrifice himself on the cross so that we should not perish, but have everlasting life? He died for our sins, however, this is not to say that we have permission to just run amok sinning as much as we can without caring because of our Savior's acts of great compassion for us. Instead, we should try not to sin, but, being human, oft time we fail. But remember what our Savior has done for us....

*copied and pasted from http://kingjbible.com/romans/5.htm so, if anyone knows a better online Bible or collection thereof and could share the URL, I'd appreciate it :)

Romans 5 states "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.


I won't quote the entire book here, but there is great knowledge there....please take time to read it, I did and now I am here.. (first post outside of the member introduction section)
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Maize said:
Yeah I know that. That's just not how I see things. :)
I fully agree with you and I think Pah's post should reach wider audiences - a few might quake in their sanitized shoes, but look at the immense relief that the world would feel if all Christians were made aware of this. I can almost 'see' a large heavy blanket rising from the earth....:)
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
I can say to you, "I think my wife's beauty could stop time!" You can tell someone else I said "He said his wife's face could stop a clock!" You can interperate WORDS any way you wish, usually the way you want them to be interperated. And that is especially true with the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pah

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
In a recent homily our parish priest said, "No matter what anyone tells you, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was a sin against hospitality." He said that Genesis 19, where the incident of Sodom's destruction is recounted, is one of the most misinterpreted sections of the Bible. He claims the inhabitants of those cities were destroyed by God for not being hospitable to strangers. What is the official Catholic teaching on the nature of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? I'm worried that modern interpretations like this priest's are used to downplay the sin of homosexuality.

If there's any misrepresenting going on, it's being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.

While it's true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it's clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God's wrath, was homosexuality. If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you'll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won't find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.



http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm
The church (not Catholic, Apologetic) I went to, the pastor always told the story of Sodom, and used that to illustrate that homosexuality is considered as sin, as well as to use that to illustrate other teaching of moral etc. I then searched the web, and some refuted the story and said that it was inhospitality, not homosexuality (as posted by Pah). I then found the above Advent web refuting the inhospitality. Looks like there is no ending to this......:banghead3
 

Pah

Uber all member
greatcalgarian said:
http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm
The church (not Catholic, Apologetic) I went to, the pastor always told the story of Sodom, and used that to illustrate that homosexuality is considered as sin, as well as to use that to illustrate other teaching of moral etc. I then searched the web, and some refuted the story and said that it was inhospitality, not homosexuality (as posted by Pah). I then found the above Advent web refuting the inhospitality. Looks like there is no ending to this......:banghead3
Would it be homosexuality with children and women in the crowd? ... or inhospitality at a time when strangers were very suspicious?
 
Top