Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[Green Cochoa]

10 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

On the haircut issue, you keep saying it is still binding, but you keep not abiding by it.

Perhaps you need to repent, reject that sin, and be sanctified into changing your behaviour before condemning the 'sin' of others?

"Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", said Jesus, and they all quietly turned and went away.

I'm not sure why you keep pushing this one so hard.  1) You don't know me, have never met me, and are clueless about what hairstyle I might have.  2) You have not proven the text addresses haircuts.  Referencing Jewish interpretations means nothing to me--are they the sole interpreters of scripture? (Sounds almost Catholic.)  3) Would it be a sin to be naturally bald?  4) No one is casting stones.  5) The commandment regarding the casting of stones does not nullify the other commandments of God.  6) If one should not condemn sin, what should one do instead? uphold it?  tolerate it? keep silent about it? 

 

[Bravus]

The two links I included considered the issue of baldness, and there are specific texts to say that male pattern baldness means that being hairless in particular places is not sin.

The reason I keep pushing this is because you are seeking to push particular texts on others. If you were not, I would be delighted to leave the issue alone. I personally don't care about what you do with your hair and beard. The point here is that you are claiming that the texts about male-male sex mean God cares about that. If so, then God clearly also cares about this issue, or why is it included in the Bible?

It's a very simple logical point: either all of it applies, or none of it does, or some does. If some does, there needs to be a clear criterion for deciding which does and which does not.

You have presented no criterion for distinguishing, and you claim some does, therefore all does.

Therefore, you should have a full beard including sideburns. Maybe you do, who knows. You should also be calling for all Christian believers to have one, if you wish to be consistent.

[Green Cochoa]

12 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

The two links I included considered the issue of baldness, and there are specific texts to say that male pattern baldness means that being hairless in particular places is not sin.

The reason I keep pushing this is because you are seeking to push particular texts on others. If you were not, I would be delighted to leave the issue alone. I personally don't care about what you do with your hair and beard. The point here is that you are claiming that the texts about male-male sex mean God cares about that. If so, then God clearly also cares about this issue, or why is it included in the Bible?

It's a very simple logical point: either all of it applies, or none of it does, or some does. If some does, there needs to be a clear criterion for deciding which does and which does not.

You have presented no criterion for distinguishing, and you claim some does, therefore all does.

Therefore, you should have a full beard including sideburns. Maybe you do, who knows. You should also be calling for all Christian believers to have one, if you wish to be consistent.

I think you have some valid points.  However, you have not established that "rounding the corners of your head" means cutting hair.  Perhaps it refers to practices such as have occurred  among certain tribes where the head is shaped in certain ways by a system of molds during growth.  To be honest, I didn't read the Jewish links.  They have been known to make up their own laws and interpretations on things.  They missed understanding a BIG truth, that Jesus was the Messiah, so why should I expect them to get anything else right?  Find it in the Bible for me, isn't that fair enough?

There is nothing unclear about the wording regarding male-to-male sex in that passage.  That's not quite the same, perhaps, as "rounding corners."  Nevertheless, if it can be proven that a man should never cut his hair, I think you should start a sect of Nazarites.

[Bravus]

Is it superficial study to simply decide that verse 22 of one chapter is binding and verse 27 of the next is not (and remember, the chapters are later additions, the books of the bible were originally not divided this way), without giving any reason?

I think not. Rather the reverse: careful study is required.

Simply not *caring* what it means to 'round the corners of your head means is what seems sloppy to me.

The Jewish links are not definitive, but it's their language we're discussing, and those pages go in some detail in considering what "pe'ah", the word translated as 'corners', actually means.

I'm being as careful as I can be, not to be vexatious but because I think it is important.

[CoAspen]

I seem to remember people outside our church saying the sabbath was for jews only and have been castigated ever since for that........now I hear it from with in the church also, very interesting!!

[CoAspen]

No, it is those who are equivocating about all the other do and do nots of the chapters in Leviticus that Pam posted......and others pointed out by DG.

No failing on my part!!!!

[Tom Wetmore]

On March 20, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Kevin(wrx) said:

False dilemma, Dave.

No, it is not.  The dilemma is real.

The point is not to prove up the validity of any one thing in the long laundry list of rules/laws. The point at this stage is not to establish whether any one point of conduct is or is not moral or sin or civil infraction or practical advice.  As David has already simply explained there are a whole bunch of rules in that list of Levitical rules.  They are Scripture and therefore to be taken seriously, as I think he is doing.  It is clear from numerous comments just here, but more widely among Christians as a whole that absolutely nobody is still following all of them. (For a delightful effort to highlight this fact, see the book "Year of Living Biblically") The simple question is which still do apply to us as moral laws and which do not.   There are 3 choices - (1) all are still binding, (2) none are, or, (3) some are and some not.

It is abundantly clear that #1 is out.  And given the discussion here many think at least one is still binding, so #2 is also out. We are left with #3. The dilemma being tested here is how do you decide which are and which are not.  If each of us divided the entire list onto two columns, "applies" and "doesn't apply", the serious and important question for each and every distinction is to have a coherent answer to the question "why?"  The answer should hopefully give some guidance to helping with deciding on the hard to figure out rules or the disputed rules.  Thus far I do not see anyone giving a good answer to that question. Nobody seems to have a logically consistent answer or set of answers. There is a lot of beating around the bush and evasion of the question.

One would hope for something helpful that gives some logical guidance to making the hard distinctions.  

[CoAspen]

Quote

Nobody seems to have a logically consistent answer or set of answers. There is a lot of beating around the bush and evasion of the question.

[Robert]

Will the homosexual's attraction to his/her own sex be taken to heaven or will it have to be changed at the 2nd coming?

If changed, then it's sinful.  

If not, then it's normal.

 

 

[CoAspen]

Quote

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

1. Because people are not using a more precise definition of what they are condemning, one can only assume they are in fact condemning the person.

Quote

....will it have to be changed at the 2nd coming?

If changed, then it's sinful.  

 

2. Cancer, diseases, etc will be changed at the 2nd coming, (correct? or so people believe) so they are sinful also, deserving of condemnation.

The bottom line in all of these discussions, one can get the feeling that there is a proudness in being able to point out the sin of others, either in their lives, what they are doing or not doing, and justifying that pointing  by quoting texts although not in context of the situation. These discussions on Homosexuals seems to be the one 'Sin' that concerns individuals have the most difficulty with. We have a self avowed homosexual person on the forum, maybe more, that is open and very honest about their struggles with life. What is the most common reaction to that, condemnation. Not much listening to the person, but much assumption. One of the least talked about, if not the very least, issues in the whole Bible seems to be all consuming to many people. There is a history of this topic on the site going way back, so, yes it does seem to be quite consuming.  All of the time Christ spent in talking about how to treat others, the issue most important to Him, even using it in an illustration about those making it through the pearly gates, would seem to mean little to us.
 

Why?

 

Adios, amigos.

 

[Bravus]

OK, I think we're at an impasse on Leviticus, so perhaps it's time to move on to the New Testament.

The claim has been made that it is the New Testament mentions of the same issue that is the criterion for which of these rules are still binding. That's a reasonable test to posit.

Let's start with the texts that specifically mention homosexuality, or are read as doing so.

[Bravus]

These 3 are the main ones:

Romans 1: 26-27 "For this cause 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."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:8-11 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Let's start with the one in Romans.

[Bravus]

Romans 1: 26-27 "For this cause 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."

One way of thinking about this one is the invert/pervert distinction.

Someone with a homosexual orientation can be described as an 'invert', in that their attraction is the inverse of the more common heterosexual attraction.

A pervert, on the other hand, is someone who goes *against* their natural attraction. It seems as though this text is talking about the latter; people whose natural inclination is straight but who dabble with gay sex for a thrill.

It's really the only way the text makes sense: for a gay person to be gay is not giving up their natural inclination, it is following their natural inclination. It is only someone naturally inclined to be straight who is giving up their natural inclination to be gay.

(the inherent misogyny (at least apparent - it could be a translation issue) in talking about 'the natural use of women' is another issue that's beyond the purposes of our discussion here)

[Bravus]

Going to the rest of the chapter is also illuminating:

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

²⁹ Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

³⁰ Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

³¹ Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

³² Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

As with so many of these NT texts, there are long lists of sins, but one particular one is emphasised and the rest pretty much ignored.

[Robert]

5 hours ago, David Geelan said:

As with so many of these NT texts, there are long lists of sins, but one particular one is emphasised and the rest pretty much ignored.

I am not ignoring the other sins....It's just that the gay community denies that their lifestyle is sin.  Otherwise we wouldn't be debating this....

Edited March 21, 2016 by Robert
their, not there

[Green Cochoa]

Leviticus still applies to us except where the types of Christ have been already fulfilled and abolished at the Cross.  Before one can say something no longer applies, one must necessarily establish that it was one of those things abolished on account of being a type of Christ and connected with those "ordinances" that were done away.

The three chapters of special focus from Leviticus for this study happen to include the "love your neighbor as yourself" law that Jesus gave.  Obviously, that still applies.  We cannot, therefore, go willy nilly painting a red "X" over everything in those passages saying they no longer apply.  I happen to believe that the laws on those fibers and the rounding of the heads likely still apply.  I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.  However, the law on fibers named two specific ones, and did not generalize to say "diverse kinds" as the Bible did in some other cases.  I believe the Bible is careful with words, and we do well to pay attention to these precisions.

Wearing a cotton and polyester blend of fabric, therefore, does not violate the commandment that proscribed wearing a blend of wool and linen.  Nowhere does God command men not to cut their hair, so the command against "rounding corners" of the head cannot be taken that way.  Even if people cut their hair, it cannot be said that they break this commandment, and therefore people should be allowed to break the commandment against sodomy.  The fact is, two wrongs don't make a right, not now, nor have they ever; so even if it were proven that for a man to cut his hair is wrong, this would not make "right" the homosexual acts that are forbidden in the same passage.  In fact, it cannot be proven that a man should not cut his hair in light of the New Testament, which links long hair to women and short hair to men.  (See 1 Corinthians 11:14-15.)

[bonnie]

I am to lazy to look up and make sure of the reason for the command against "rounding corners" of the head cannot be taken that way.  I think it was because of pagan rituals . Maybe for the dead. It should be fairly simple to look up and clarify

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, bonnie said:

I am to lazy to look up and make sure of the reason for the command against "rounding corners" of the head cannot be taken that way.  I think it was because of pagan rituals . Maybe for the dead. It should be fairly simple to look up and clarify

Bonnie,

Perhaps if you were less lazy to look things up, you would discover that you are likely remembering, and being confused by, a separate part of the passage that says "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead."  Of course, if the separate parts are interpreted as being connected, then you might have a point there.  Maybe the Asian culture of shaving themselves bald for the dead is proscribed by this passage in the Bible.

[bonnie]

2 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Bonnie,

Perhaps if you were less lazy to look things up, you would discover that you are likely remembering, and being confused by, a separate part of the passage that says "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead."  Of course, if the separate parts are interpreted as being connected, then you might have a point there.  Maybe the Asian culture of shaving themselves bald for the dead is proscribed by this passage in the Bible.

I think it had to do with pagan gods or rituals ,not sure if it was for the dead.

[bonnie]

14 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Bonnie,

Perhaps if you were less lazy to look things up, you would discover that you are likely remembering, and being confused by, a separate part of the passage that says "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead."  Of course, if the separate parts are interpreted as being connected, then you might have a point there.  Maybe the Asian culture of shaving themselves bald for the dead is proscribed by this passage in the Bible.

wikipedia

 

 

The book of Leviticus in the Torah makes mention of corners of the head and prohibits the marring of the corners of the beard, with particular emphasis on priests not marring the corners of the beard;^[3] as with many other parts of Leviticus, the Book of Ezekiel describes different regulations, stating that the priests should not shave their heads, or let their locks grow long.^[4]

However, there were exceptions, with the Book of Ezekiel itself adding that priests should keep their hair trimmed,^[4] and Leviticus arguing that, in certain cases of tzaraath, the beard and hair should be completely shaved away.^[5] Numbers(Ch. 6) additionally requires that Nazarites shave their heads, 7 days after any contact with corpses.^[6]

Origin[edit]

According to biblical scholars, the shaving of hair, particularly of the corners of the beard, was originally a mourning custom;^[7] the behaviour appears, from the Book of Jeremiah, to also have been practiced by other Semitic tribes,^[8][9][10] although some ancient manuscripts of the text read live in remote places rather than clip the corners of their hair. Biblical scholars think that the regulations against shaving hair may be an attack on the practice of offering hair to the dead, which was performed in the belief that it would obtain protection in sheol;^[11] Nazirites shaved after contact with a corpse, captive women shaved after mourning the death of their parents, and the general prohibition in the Holiness Code is immediately followed by a rule against people cutting their own bodies for the benefit of the dead.^[12]

Textual scholars date the Priestly Source, and the Holiness and Priestly Codes within it, to the late 7th century or later;^[13] it appears that before this time, the shaving of the head during mourning was permitted, and even encouraged.^[11] The Book of Amos, which is dated by textual scholars to the mid 7th century,^[11] as well as the Books of Isaiah and of Micah, which textual scholars date to a slightly later period, portray God as instructing the Israelites to shave their head as an act of mourning:^[14][15][16]

...God... called you to weep and mourn. He told you to shave your heads in sorrow for your sins-^[15]

The prohibition against cutting the corners of the beard may also have been an attempt to distinguish the appearance of Israelites from that of the surrounding nations, and reduce the influence of foreign religions;^[17] Maimonides criticises it as being the custom of idolatrous priests.^[18] The Hittites and Elamites were clean-shaven, and the Sumerianswere also frequently without a beard;^[19] conversely, the Egyptians and Libyans shaved the beard into very stylised elongated goatees.^{[19][not in citation given]}

[Bravus]

...which was kind of my point. "Don't shave your beard so that you look like surrounding tribes", "Don't have gay sex like the surrounding tribes". 

If these were for singling out Israel from among its neighbours, but now, in the New Testament, the gospel goes to all, both Jew and Gentile alike, then things that were prohibited as group markers are no longer relevant. 

[Green Cochoa]

"Ye [are] the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead." (Deuteronomy 14:1)

[Bravus]

This is a point you have consistently not understood. There are some things that are matters of opinion, and some that are not.

When I state something that is a matter of opinion, I am very careful to say so.

But things like the diagnosis of circular reasoning are not matters of opinion: if someone assumes what they set out to prove, that *is* circular reasoning. It's not a matter of opinion.

What I am seeking to do, in this whole discussion, is careful inquiry. If you read carefully, and pay attention, you will notice that I have not, in any of these threads, advanced the opinion that homosexuality - orientation or action - is not sin. I have advanced no opinion on the matter. I have challenged those who claim it is sin to establish that from the Bible, and have seen a lot of misdirection and assumption.

The inquiry has barely begun, and it requires patience. Leaping to a conclusion before the investigation is complete leads to weakly supported conclusions.

[Bravus]

If it comes across that way, I apologise, because that is not my intention.

I am certainly no authority on Bible study: my experience and knowledge in that field is very modest.

Something I do know something about is conducting a careful investigation. I have published textbooks on research methodology.

I am attempting to apply those skills and methods to understanding what the Bible really says about this important issue.

I do sometimes get frustrated with people who I perceive as being careless with their methods... perhaps particularly when they then accuse me of being careless with mine.

I'm not an authority, but I am careful. I can't say I'm right, but the only way I know of to come to valid conclusions is with careful analysis.

It's what I'm attempting here. I'm sorry if it's frustrating to you (or anyone else), and doubly so if I seem to have been dismissive or rude toward you or others.

[Bravus]

Not interpreting the Bible, in this case, suggesting a possible reading/interpretation/approach.

Not saying it's the One True Way to think about it. If you find it unconvincing, that's entirely fine. I'm not especially convinced by it myself.