Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

March 23, 2016

Here's a discussion of the terms 'phooskos' (translated as 'unnatural') and 'para physin' (translated as 'against nature'): http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

March 23, 2016

I think it has an agenda, but I think it tries to be honest. It says things like 'liberal Christians read it this way ... conservative Christians, and maybe Paul himself, think of it that way'. It was the first Google hit, I'm not saying it's definitive, but it does at least consider the meanings of the specific words.

I noted above that I am happy to accept that Paul meant by these passages pretty much what most people assume by them. That Paul in these passages condemns homosexual activity. As such, the Bible (if considered as a single entity) does too. Whether or not Paul was morally right and/or consistent with the teachings of Jesus himself in doing so is a different question for a different thread.

In the case of these texts in Romans, the answer to the OP question seems to be 'yes', with the possible caveat that the texts are about activities not orientations.

March 23, 2016

TheWanderer

March 23, 2016

Green: Many parents have children w ho have departed f rom their upbringing and may even rejected the parent. But, many of those parents still consider them to be their children. They hope for a return.

I was created by God and sustained in life today by the power of God. I will remain God's creation and therefore child to the final end, even if I chose to depart eternally form the home that God wants to welcome me into. It will be my choice as to whether or not I chose to spend eternity with God. But regardless of how I chose, I will be God's child even if eternally in death.

The same applies to you, Green. As a child of God, I have a responsibility to respect and treat you as such, even when I may disagree with your doctrinal positions and/or your life style. You may be a family member estranged and that may be due to your choice. But you and I share a creation by God and in addition we share the sustaining life that God gives us. WE are brothers, even if estranged and God is our Father.

March 23, 2016

My point was that Paul didn't say 'natural', he said 'phooskos'. Immediately overlaying all the connotations that *we* place on the English word 'natural' is not good exegesis either.

What did Paul mean by these texts? I am happy to explain how the periodic table of the elements arises from the quantum numbers associated with the energy and spin of electrons in atoms, but when it comes to theology I need to rely on the work of experts. Of course, then we can end up with 'dueling experts': *everyone* has some sort of agenda, not only those with whom we disagree.

In short, my point was not to bring my own interpretation to what is meant by 'phooskos' in these texts, but also to go much further than simply assuming that a straight reading of a particular English translation tells me all I need to know.

March 23, 2016

Here's one well-argued and interesting case. I look forward to the posting of others (by others), equally well argued, but with the opposite conclusion.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/10/romans-126-27-a-clobber-passage-that-should-lose-its-wallop/

March 24, 2016

Did you read the whole article? Imagine Chapter 1:18-32 as a 'sock puppet': Paul speaking in the voice of the 'Judaizers' he opposed. Then, in 2:1, he turns it all around on them: hey, you judge others in all these ways, while doing the same things yourselves! That section in Chapter 1, then, is not Paul expounding doctrine, but Paul exemplifying error that he then goes on to counter.

It's like the common creationist behaviour of quotemining: When an author says, for example, "It seems impossible that the complexity of the eye can have arisen through the mechanism of natural selection: however, there is a clear fossil record demonstrating that this did in fact occur", they quote only the piece of the sentence before the colon, and make it seems as though an evolutionist author talking about evolution is against evolution.

If this interpretation of these texts in Romans is correct, then the 'quotemine' has Paul saying the opposite of his actual teaching.

March 24, 2016

I'm not sure that 'eisegesis' is defined as 'an interpretation other than the one I support'. That allegation needs to be made and argued for theologically, not just asserted.

March 24, 2016

Certainly. But an attempt to read the Bible as it is written is exactly that.

What you haven't done so far is come back with either your own analysis of the Greek text or one by a scholar that supports your reading of it.

Unless you are claiming to have the necessary expertise yourself - I certainly am not - I'm not sure I can see how we can seriously study without getting experts involved.

It's like someone seeking to understand Maxwell's equation without understanding what the curl operator ( ∇ × ) is or does.

March 24, 2016

8 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Your assuming the English translation is inadequate.

I don't think so. I am, rather, *not* simply assuming that it's adequate. I'm inquiring into whether or not it is.

One of the huge challenges with translation is that words do not only have denotations (their dictionary meanings) they have connotations (the associations, images and metaphors that arise around them). What 'natural' means in a strict sense is less broad than the set of associations that we - as individuals or as a culture - have with it. Similarly for what 'phooskos' means. So translation is as much art as science, and understanding the meaning of the term in the language in which it was written is also going to be both more accurate and richer than relying on a single English translation.

March 25, 2016

I'm not sure whether that comment is for me or The Wanderer. Since his claim mischaracterises my views, I'll let it go through to the catcher either way.

March 25, 2016

On 3/23/2016 at 5:32 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Green: Many parents have children w ho have departed from their upbringing and may even rejected the parent. But, many of those parents still consider them to be their children. They hope for a return.

I was created by God and sustained in life today by the power of God. I will remain God's creation and therefore child to the final end, even if I chose to depart eternally form the home that God wants to welcome me into. It will be my choice as to whether or not I chose to spend eternity with God.
But regardless of how I chose, I will be God's child even if eternally in death.
The same applies to you, Green. As a child of God, I have a responsibility to respect and treat you as such, even when I may disagree with your doctrinal positions and/or your life style. You may be a family member estranged and that may be due to your choice. But you and I share a creation by God and in addition we share the sustaining life that God gives us. WE are brothers, even if estranged and God is our Father ....

It would seem while one may claim right to always be a child of God, the story of Lucifer's eventual position in the universe tells a different story.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it..... John 8

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

March 25, 2016

LifeHisCost gets it. We choose whether or not God is our Father. He is Father to all who love and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. To all others, He is not called their father. Remember Adam? The Bible says he was "the son of God" (possible "type" here of Christ as well). But when Adam had a son, the son was specifically declared to have been in Adam's image, as opposed to God's like Adam had been made. Do we all worship God? the same God? Is He "God" for everyone? In a sense, of course, He is--for He is ultimately the one in charge of everything and the owner of all. However, the Bible is clear that there are other gods, and that our God does not claim all people as His own (see Hosea 1:9-10).

Gregory has a way with words that appeals to human reasoning and emotion. However, God's truths are dependent on principles that have nothing to do with these natural traits of the human heart. As we grow in Christ, we must learn to walk by faith; not by sight, not by emotion, not by a "burning in the bosom," nor by any appeal to education, custom, culture, tradition, or popularity in this world.

These aspects of the human condition serve as inferior foundations of theology for many, including their concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. Homosexuality is judged by the heart instead of by the Word of God in a world today that edges ever nearer to the eternal abyss. It seems that God should accept everyone. It seems that since "God is love," and since He has promised, by His ultimate sacrifice, to forgive, that God must bear with us in our sins and tolerate them--finding some way to save everyone in the end. Nevertheless, the Bible plainly disabuses us of such an erroneous view. Satan has tried to package sin in an attractive manner, whispering many lies about it to catch us off-guard. Among his favorite lies are these: 1) there's still time to change the road you're on; 2) God will overlook minor matters; 3) God loves people too much to destroy anyone; 4) sinners can never be perfect anyway, so God will save them in their sins; 5) if God made you that way, He would be a hypocrite to require something else--don't worry about it; and 6) being no longer under the law, but under grace, the commandments have all been done away. There are other lies, of course, to catch sinners from other angles: 1) you're too wicked and God doesn't love you; 2) you can never hope to be saved anyhow, why not just live it up for the moment?; and 3) God is cruel--why desire to spend an eternity with such a being?

I see many of these lies bandied about in discussions on homosexuality. Frequently, well-meaning persons take up such lies and reframe them in pleasing ways such that they feel better when others have agreed with them. Is popularity any evidence of truthfulness? Am I more correct if others agree? Jesus said the broad way went to destruction, not to life. Popularity is something to be distrustful of; smooth words can come from Satan's own mouth.

Either we base our doctrines on a clear "thus saith the LORD," or we follow the deceitfulness of human wisdom. The Bible is plain on the question of homosexuality. It is too explicitly clear in the examples that it gives to be excusably misunderstood. All of us will stand before God to answer for ourselves one day. What excuse will we make then?

March 25, 2016

17 hours ago, David Geelan said:

I don't think so. I am, rather, *not* simply assuming that it's adequate. I'm inquiring into whether or not it is.

One of the huge challenges with translation is that words do not only have denotations (their dictionary meanings) they have connotations (the associations, images and metaphors that arise around them). What 'natural' means in a strict sense is less broad than the set of associations that we - as individuals or as a culture - have with it. Similarly for what 'phooskos' means. So translation is as much art as science, and understanding the meaning of the term in the language in which it was written is also going to be both more accurate and richer than relying on a single English translation.

Thank you for posting this! It is one reason to always have the mind of a student.

March 25, 2016

Again: Many of the posts misrepresent what others have said.

Personally, I reject the majority of which Green attributes to others. in the following comment:

These aspects of the human condition serve as inferior foundations of theology for many, including their concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. Homosexuality is judged by the heart instead of by the Word of God in a world today that edges ever nearer to the eternal abyss. It
seems that God should accept everyone. It seems that since "God is love," and since He has promised, by His ultimate sacrifice, to forgive, that God must bear with us in our sins and tolerate them--finding some way to save everyone in the end. Nevertheless, the Bible plainly disabuses us of such an erroneous view. Satan has tried to package sin in an attractive manner, whispering many lies about it to catch us off-guard. Among his favorite lies are these: 1) there's still time to change the road you're on; 2) God will overlook minor matters; 3) God loves people too much to destroy anyone; 4) sinners can never be perfect anyway, so God will save them in their sins; 5) if God made you that way, He would be a hypocrite to require something else--don't worry about it; and 6) being no longer under the law, but under grace, the commandments have all been done away. There are other lies, of course, to catch sinners from other angles: 1) you're too wicked and God doesn't love you; 2) you can never hope to be saved anyhow, why not just live it up for the moment?; and 3) God is cruel--why desire to spend an eternity with such a being?

However, I do agree that God is love. But, I do not believe that such a belief results in other beliefs that Green has listed.

But, Green has not said that he attributes them to me and I suspect that he was speaking generally.

March 25, 2016

On 3/19/2016 at 9:41 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

As for the text in Jude, It is far from clear that the Greek translated in the KJV as "strange flesh" is referring to homosexual sexual activity. It appears to be broadly sexual perversion. Are you going to directly address what the prophet Ezekiel said? Are you suggesting that the word of Jude, many centuries later, should be taken over the words of the prophet Ezekiel, who in context was speaking the direct words of the Lord?

Jude first mentions fornication, and then mentions strange flesh. "Fornication" would cover "broadly sexual perversion," I would think, and thus the going after strange flesh should be something else.

The Greek word for "strange" is heteros, which means other of a different kind. So the flesh it is speaking of should be something different than the normal.

I don't see any conflict whatsoever between Ezekiel and Jude, since it is Ezekiel's sins that lead to what Genesis and Jude refer to. Any culture that is short on food and pride, and must spend much of their day just surviving, won't be indulging in such perversions.

Jude was just as inspired as Ezekiel, and so we can take the words of both as being of equal authority.

March 25, 2016

22 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Does God just accept sinful man as they already are in their sinful nature? I don't think so..

Yes. I can say that because that is how it happened with me. I had no idea of right and wrong and had to learn through God's word.

His people were patient with me as I learned and am still learning. The sins that are seen are the ones that people notice first. But God is concerned with the heart. But it is the revelation of His love that gives me the courage to seek Him and ask for power. If I relied only on condemnation I would shrink away and probably not even try.

March 25, 2016

Thanks Gail....tis enjoyable to hear a person speak without fear. I believe that the thought expressed is exactly the one that Christ came and spent the majority of His time on earth trying to get others to see.

March 25, 2016

I think many are parents here.

I have a son and he will be 32 in a few months.

He is a good boy but has gotten into trouble in the last few years. He was a Bouncer at a bar, and was a quite handful when he was a teen.. actually I started aging when he became a teen

If lets say he would do something horrific he would still be my son and I will always love him.

No matter what he does ..I will always love him.

Imagine GOD with infinity more times love than mine for son.

A dear Christian close friend asked me if i thought GOD loved the devil.

My response was yes.

Love does not stop loving others.

Ourselves are loved by HIM no matter what.

Nothing can separate us from the Love of GOD.

Nothing!

Does any parent here stopped loving their children?

March 25, 2016

2 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

In light of the very good post by Green, if the scriptures do show homosexuality is an outright sin then what do with the promotion of sin here in the forum?

1. *if*

2. We have not yet distinguished between orientation and action. As far as I am aware, no-one is promoting actions on this forum. What is promoted is God's love whatever our orientation.

3. There are many other sins: greed, anger, hatred. Some of these are promoted here too. Some are committed here. Those are challenged too. It is appropriate to verbally challenge sins, if our attitude towards sinners (a) is that if Jesus and (b) acknowledges that we are sinners too.

March 25, 2016

1 hour ago, GayatfootofCross said:

I think many are parents here.

And that's what scares me about the lack of spiritual discernment that is so prevalent in our age. When the Bible is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood and to find that it is being completely misunderstood to the determent of my children.

Luk_18:8 "I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

Christian regards

March 25, 2016

43 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

If we don't remove the desire then we will fall to that desire eventually every time.

So every straight man will eventually commit adultery? I don't believe so. I never have. Yet I find many women other than my wife attractive and desirable.

March 25, 2016

2 hours ago, Pickle said:

Jude first mentions fornication, and then mentions strange flesh. "Fornication" would cover "broadly sexual perversion," I would think, and thus the going after strange flesh should be something else.

The Greek word for "strange" is heteros, which means other of a different kind. So the flesh it is speaking of should be something different than the normal.

I don't see any conflict whatsoever between Ezekiel and Jude, since it is Ezekiel's sins that lead to what Genesis and Jude refer to. Any culture that is short on food and pride, and must spend much of their day just surviving, won't be indulging in such perversions.

Jude was just as inspired as Ezekiel, and so we can take the words of both as being of equal authority.

On 3/19/2016 at 7:41 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

As for the text in Jude, It is far from clear that the Greek translated in the KJV as "strange flesh" is referring to homosexual sexual activity. It appears to be broadly sexual perversion. Are you going to directly address what the prophet Ezekiel said? Are you suggesting that the word of Jude, many centuries later, should be taken over the words of the prophet Ezekiel, who in context was speaking the direct words of the Lord?

I think this Word helps to clarify the place of Adam and Steve in the Kingdom of God.

4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” ....Genesis 19 NLT

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. ... Genesis 19 KJV

13If 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 bloodguiltiness is upon them.....Leviticus 20

I find it difficult to believe that God would create anything that was worthy of death from the beginning.

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee....Ezekiel 28

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

March 25, 2016

4 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

So every straight man will eventually commit adultery? I don't believe so. I never have. Yet I find many women other than my wife attractive and desirable.

However I admit I have been tempted in much worse ways.

…12Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.....1 Corinthians

It is not the temptations that are sinful, but the choice to imbibe.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

March 25, 2016

You've shifted your ground.

It would not be necessary to insist on an identity if others spent less time negating it.

I'm certain our LGBTIQ brothers and sisters would love nothing more than simply to be people among people and believers among believers, if others would simply allow them to do so.

Sign In

Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

Recommended Posts

Bravus

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Gail

Kevin H

Bravus

Bravus

GayatfootofCross

Gregory Matthews

Bravus

Bravus

Bravus

Bravus

Bravus

Bravus

Bravus

LifeHiscost

Green Cochoa

Gail

Gregory Matthews

Pickle

Gail

CoAspen

GayatfootofCross

Bravus

hch

Bravus

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

Bravus

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity