Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[LifeHiscost]

16 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

No, and not a very good comparison. I don't write tons of posts on my sexuality. My sexuality is not my identity. I don't dwell on sexuality. Those who do dwell and identify on sexuality are perverted whether gay or straight.

LoL! I can agree with only because of the Word.

…7The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer. 8Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.....1 Peter

51But let me reveal to you a wonderful secret. We will not all die, but we will all be transformed! 52It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. 53For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies.

54Then, when our dying bodies have been transformed into bodies that will never die,^j this Scripture will be fulfilled:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.^k

55O death, where is your victory?

O death, where is your sting?^l”

56For sin is the sting that results in death, and the law gives sin its power. 57But thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless......! Corinthians 15

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[Bravus]

The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector comes to mind...

[GayatfootofCross]

24 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

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. 

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

For kids like me growing up who Naturally played jump rope with girls and barbies ..I didn't think anything about my desire for these kind of toys verses  what was acceptable or the social norm. I was just a kid  that gravitated to whatever.

As all are.

Then the other kids made an issue out of it. I did not. The name calling and the spreading of rumors that precede you in a small town.

 

I couldn't be any deeper in the closet ..cringing!

 

there has always been people thru out history always singled these peeps out  for mayhem and murder(burning or bashing) or even sought for sex they cant get from wifes or girlfriends ..as with many marginalized who had no voice.

Or to even put down and cast away and use the Bible.

 

[Gail]

32 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

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. 

I have also suspected such

[Gregory Matthews]

. . .  no one would even admit the action was even sinful up until a Biblical study was started.

 

Where have you been?

That has been acknowledged for some time, and before a Bible study was started in this thread.

 

[Bravus]

You are making an assumption that is not well founded.

[Unchained]

My 2¢...

I’m a fairly progressive and young person, someone who isn’t at all afraid of investigating controversial biblical issues. I’ve often changed my mind when I’m presented with new biblical evidence… If someone were able to clearly demonstrate that engaging in homosexual acts is allowed in the Bible, then I personally wouldn’t be afraid to state this publicly. And I have nothing against gay people.

However, reading this thread reminds me of a discussion I had with a Christian scientist who believed in evolution. He argued that since he believed in science, and because he also believed in the Bible, then Genesis 1 must be interpreted symbolically, not literally. To be honest this is really, really, bad way of interpreting the Bible. Now, I would respect someone who says, “I believe science has proven evolution, so the person who wrote Genesis must clearly be wrong.” If people say that, then that’s totally okay with me. But I have problems with people who are unable to see that from a literary point of view, the narrative in Genesis describes a literal act of creation...

Likewise I respect people who say, “well, the Bible might condemn homosexual acts, but this was a cultural thing that doesn’t apply to our age”. If you think that, then we’re cool. (Though I respectfully disagree.) But I do admit that I have problems when people flat out deny the references to homosexual acts that you find in Leviticus and in Paul’s writings.

Paul uses the the word arsenokoitēs to refer to homosexuals, and this is “evidently a rendering into Greek of the standard rabbinic term for "one who lies with a male"”, derived from the LXX translation of Leviticus. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul also uses a word which “standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries understand [..] as a reference to the passive partner in a male homosexual act.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Arsenokoit.C4.93s

In other words, if Paul took issue with Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality, then why would he echo its terminology? That some people have challenged the traditional interpretation of these texts, doesn’t mean that it is sensible to do so based on the literary evidence available. I think we have to admit that the Bible condemn homosexual acts, though we’re naturally free to disagree with its teachings.

 

[BigMark]

On March 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Green Cochoa said:

Loving consensual relationships have no direct relationship to the question of lawfulness in marriage.  Naturally, one hopes to have a loving relationship.  However, the fact of having one does not make it a legal relationship.  Biblical examples of this would include Herod and Herodias, Solomon and his harem, Amnon and Tamar (at least for a one-night stand), Samson and Delilah, etc.

Judges 14:3 "Get her for me for she is the right one for me." NIV Other versions have different vernacular. It appears that Delilah was the one for him.

Just my $.02

[Green Cochoa]

20 minutes ago, BigMark said:

Judges 14:3 "Get her for me for she is the right one for me." NIV Other versions have different vernacular. It appears that Delilah was the one for him.

Just my $.02

Sure.  He said he wanted her.  Did that make it right in God's eyes?

[hch]

I just awoke from a strange dream

Thinking judgement comes tomorrow--remember the vision of the dried bones--how strange?

and In my ear rang the text: Ezekiel 20:2 accompanied with the thought shall a man turn?

"Then came the word of the LORD unto me, saying,
Son of man, speak unto the elders of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye come to enquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you.
Wilt thou judge them, son of man, wilt thou judge them? cause them to know the abominations of their fathers:
And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God;
In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands:
Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves ... I am the LORD your God.
But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto Me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake...then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish My anger against them in the midst of the land... (Ezekiel 20:2-8)

I saw myself searching Ezekiel for a text that came before chapter 20. And I wondered if it should have been 2:20 but no such text. But I read on

"Eze 3:18  When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

But the thought "shall a man turn" kept on my mind so I googled it in my Bible

Isa_13:14  "And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. "

Eze_3:20  "Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand."

And while thinking about my dream and wondering if it was just a dream, I checked out this thread.

Abominations identified, warnings given, and then comes the judgment. committing iniquity is to knowingly sin and a stumblingblock is putting that known sin in front of an unsuspecting person so as to trip them up.

I wonder what tomorrow will bring? Will it be literally tomorrow or the tomorrow that gets here someday? And how many people will heed the warning or brush it off as a threat of fire and brimstone being uttered against poor folks that have a different take on the love of God and how to express it and who they can express it to

God is not mocked. He is longsuffering, but when the time comes that He can stand it no longer...

Christian regards

[hch]

P.S. about the dry bones: Ezekiel 37:14  "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live..."

[Bravus]

Even an ounce of humility and recognition of the possibility that one is wrong would be a salutary medicine for many here - naturally including myself.

This thread was intended as an investigation into what the Bible says. We have considered two texts and are in the middle of considering a third. There are at least two more texts to be considered.

A number of people have leapt to judgement and condemnation before that inquiry is even completed. Can I ask them to please take that out of this thread into another thread, so that the careful, methodical process can continue?

Thank you.

[Bravus]

Quote

This is all moot if we agree all of chapter 1 is of Paul.

Not so.

If I am arguing about the value of higher education, I might write something like:

"Those who have not participated in the disciplines of critical thinking are incapable of higher thought, some would argue, however I believe that the 'university of life' can yield levels of reasoning higher than that fostered by formal settings in many cases.":

Someone could quote me as follows: "Those who have not participated in the disciplines of critical thinking are incapable of higher thought" - David Geelan

I would be the author of the whole thought, but by taking half the thought selectively they would have me say the opposite of what I think and what I am saying.

If Paul is setting up a position in 1:18-32 and then turning around and attacking that position in 2:1 and forward, we would be doing the exact same thing as in this illustration: quoting him in such a way as to make him seem to say the opposite of what he thinks and is saying.

[phkrause]

I don't see Paul in R 2:1 attacking what he said in R 1:18:32!!

 

[hch]

The titanic sank before it had finished its maiden voyage despite having its architect onboard. The danger was instantaneous. Because the ship sank before it got to its destination, they had to change their plans.

In a study of this nature, the natural man is at war with the spiritual man. If the preponderance of evidence was all it takes to assure a godly outcome; everyone hearing the gospel would be saved. But it is not the lack of evidence that is at issue: it is the carnal nature that is the lens that focuses the evidence.

To be reminded that beliefs have consequences is to place an issue in a different setting. Some things are not academic ponderings that are of no consequences. Some things are life and death issues that need to be studied in that context.

The example is before us of Christ. They had the evidence and when they refused it step by step, they crucified Jesus in spite of the evidence. The evidence did not change them. Each time they rejected or explained away something of importance they hardened their hearts. Perhaps people are different in this age?

If having more evidence is the answer, request a moderator to move my posts to a different thread. If needing more time to study the evidence, ask God to hold the winds a little longer. But if He is ready to shake things up, our timetable will have to accommodate His timetable.

In the days of Noah and Lot, God did not wait for them to consider every possibility. He gave His word for an allotted time and He took action at the time of His choosing.

There is no peace and safety in delaying to settle this matter.

 

[hch]

I apologize if I have come across as being holier than thou.

Since my wife left, I have been put into a position to make some hard choices. God hates divorce so that has not been an option. For seven years, my wife has refused to reconcile, so I have chosen a life of celibacy until such time as God would put things in a different focus.

That said, there are things that I have settled in my mind because I serve a holy God and HIs people are to be holy. As I have said before: the church is not a convalescent center for the incurably ill. It is a hospital for sick saints that need the balm of Gilead for Jesus is even at the door.

This is my last post on this thread. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

[Robert]

7 hours ago, David Geelan said:

 

If Paul is setting up a position in 1:18-32 and then turning around and attacking that position in 2:1 and forward, we would be doing the exact same thing as in this illustration: quoting him in such a way as to make him seem to say the opposite of what he thinks and is saying.

Romans 1:2 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things....17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God...

Paul is primarily speaking to the legalistic Jews in Roman 2:1-29.  They boasted in their righteousness before God's law, but legalism only dresses up the outward appearance.  

For example, the Pharisees would literally strain the gnats out of their drinking water because they were considered them "unclean", but behind closed doors they would chow down on camel flesh.  See Matt 23:24  So the very things they judged others for they practiced themselves.  

We are not to judge because ultimately we are all sinners before God's law.  That does not mean that we should "hearty approval [of] those who practice" the sins listed in Romans 1:21-31 

 

[Robert]

The question we need to ask is what's the difference between practicing sin and struggling with sin?

[Gail]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

The question we need to ask is what's the difference between practicing sin and struggling with sin?

Great question! This would make a great topic all on its own

[Robert]

Is homosexuality sinful? 

Answer: Yes

Why?  Its a component of our fallen humanity.  

Is my heterosexuality sinful?

Answer: Yes, it was perverted at the fall.

So no matter how you look at our situation we are sinners not only by thought; not only by action, but by our very nature.  That's why "flesh and blood" cannot enter the kingdom of God.  Hence "we must be changed".

 

 

 

 

[Robert]

Quote

Is my heterosexuality sinful?

Read Matt 5:27,28

According to Christ adultery is not only a sexual act - it's a thought!  

If I look lustfully at a woman, for a millisecond, in the eyes of God's law I've committed adultery.  So God's law demands  that even my motives and thoughts be pure. Where do these lusts originate?

"For from within, out of the heart (mind) of men, proceed evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder, 22 theft, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” Mark 7:21-23

Temptation comes from within.  Paul calls it "indwelling sin".  The fact we have this "indwelling sin" condemns us.  We are unfit for heaven in our present condition.

Now, does that mean I need to give up the struggle with my nature?  Should I make a practice of cheating on my wife?  Should I condone and practice what my fallen humanity desires? No! Does this mean I'm sinless in the area of adultery?  No, I'm the chief of sinners. If I look at a woman lustfully (and it happens even at my age) I've sinned.

What do I do when I sin?  Well my nature tempts me (my mind) to justify my sin.  Justifying adultery is condoning sin. So I repent.  But as far as the law is concerned I'm a sinner.  

As Paul said, " O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!  So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."

[Robert]

Look what Ellen White says of God's remnant, commandment keeping people:

Quote

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf." [P&K 588]

 

 

Notice that while they are sinners, falling short of God's agape love, they are not practicing sinners.  They have not given themselves up to be totally controlled by the desires of their natures.  They aren't condoning sin, even though they are sinning.  They repent and Christ presents them in Himself holy and blameless.

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Gail said:

Great question! This would make a great topic all on its own

The difference is repentance.  

For example, the difference between a practicing homosexual and a struggling one is that latter repents while the former indulges and justifies. 

The same is true of any sin....

[Robert]

Quote

Proverbs 28:9 "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination."

Let's say that instead of struggling with my sexual desires outside of marriage I justify and condom these.  What am I doing?  I am turning away my ear from hearing what the law states concerning sin and especially adultery.  

The law calls adultery sin.  If I say adultery is not sin then I am calling the law, and God by implication, a liar.  If my sexual desires are not sin then I do not need a Savior.  If I do not have Christ I must stand before God's law without an intercessor. At some point I then harden my heart and then even my prayer will be an abomination.

We need to admit our condition folks.  We need to admit to Christ we are sinners in need of both His imputed and imparted righteousness.  His imputed righteousness allows Him to present us in Himself holy and blameless before the law.  This is our ticket to heaven.

Christ only gives His imparted righteousness to those who are resting in His imputed righteousness.  This is the prerequisite to experience God's agape love.   

 

[Robert]

This is condoning sin as a lifestyle.  Be yourself...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dFUo_bUOlA#t=109

Love is not love.  Human love is not agape love.  Human love is self-seeking....God's love seeks not its own.