Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[Bravus]

The English term 'sodomite' is a relatively recent coinage, and is evidence only of English confusion about the sins of Sodom, not about what those sins actually were.

It is possible, of course, that Sodom had many sins, but its treatment of the vulnerable is mentioned more times than sexual sin. I have tried to establish that attempted gang rape is much more related to that theme of how the vulnerable were treated than it is to a particular sexuality.

If you assume a priori that sexuality explains everything about the Sodom story and then fit all the evidence to that, you are not doing good and careful Bible study.

[Green Cochoa]

12 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

The English term 'sodomite' is a relatively recent coinage, and is evidence only of English confusion about the sins of Sodom, not about what those sins actually were.

It is possible, of course, that Sodom had many sins, but its treatment of the vulnerable is mentioned more times than sexual sin. I have tried to establish that attempted gang rape is much more related to that theme of how the vulnerable were treated than it is to a particular sexuality.

If you assume a priori that sexuality explains everything about the Sodom story and then fit all the evidence to that, you are not doing good and careful Bible study.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

SODOMITE, n.
1. An inhabitant of Sodom.
2. One guilty of sodomy.
SODOMY, n. A crime against nature.

As can be readily seen here, the "crime against nature" is evidently too abominable to name.  I think the Bible treats issues like this similarly.  The Bible writers did not like to even name such an unnatural act.  Perhaps, in fact, they did not have a word for it.  This is why God gives a law against acts of homosexuality, not by naming it, "homosexual" (ca. 1869) being a more recent word, by far, than "sodomy," but by describing the act in terms related to natural marriage that everyone would easily understand.

The word "sodomy" goes back nearly a thousand years in English, and predates this in its Latin roots.  Googling it might bring you this:

"Middle English: from medieval Latin sodomia, from late Latin peccatum Sodomiticum ‘sin of Sodom’ (after Gen. 19:5, which implies that the men of Sodom practised homosexual rape) (see Sodom)."

 

 

[Bravus]

Sure. But if that definition already assumes that a loving, monogamous same-sex marriage is excluded, we're back in 'circular reasoning land'. 

As are so many of the comments in this thread. Decide ahead of time that homosexuality is the issue, then hey presto, 'strange flesh' is homosexuality. What does the Greek say? In OT context, it's much more likely to be about race and tribe: foreign flesh. If we're using modern words, 'strange' is a slang term for an adulterous partner of the same sex. 

Assumption is the mother of all... eisegesis. 

[phkrause]

51 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Jude 7King James Version (KJV)

⁷ Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

Jude 7New International Version (NIV)

⁷ In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding townsgave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

 

Jude 7American Standard Version (ASV)

⁷ Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth ^[a]as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

I'm guessing you mean Jude 1? Not 7?

CJB

7 And S'dom, 'Amora and the surrounding cities, following a pattern like theirs, committing sexual sins and perversions, lie exposed as a warning of the everlasting fire awaiting those who must undergo punishment.nd S'dom, 'Amora and the surrounding cities, following a pattern like theirs, committing sexual sins and perversions, lie exposed as a warning of the everlasting fire awaiting those who must undergo punishment.

[Bravus]

Kevin, no, what I am doing is not assuming. I am challenging those who are assuming.

Where is your Scriptural definition of marriage that limits it to one man and one woman. Jesus does speak about that when he speaks about becoming 'one flesh', but was his purpose there to define marriage, or was his purpose to talk about something else entirely, using the example of marriage? Since 90-96% of marriages will be heterosexual, it would be unsurprising if his example was that way, but if he was not intending to define marriage, then taking that as the definition would be making an error.

I admit to having a bias: I have said that I am an ally, and explained why. But I am also seeking to find out exactly what the Bible says. I'll post something below about what I have discovered, and how I have been surprised.

My search is sincere, and if the evidence contravenes what I think, I will follow the evidence. The point I am making here is that others are rushing ahead of the evidence.

[Bravus]

If someone's perspective is 'I already know, based on my own personal reading of the English translations', then they may as well not participate in this thread. What are they going to learn? "Don't bother me with Hebrew and Greek, I know what I think" is not a good basis for understanding.

[Bravus]

What have I learned so far? The texts in Leviticus are actually pretty straightforward. I have to admit that, coming into this inquiry, I was under the impression that many or all of the texts were of the kind that used disputed terms such as 'arsenokoites', where the understanding was complex. I've learned that a number of the texts are quite explicit and the translation of the words is not controversial.

As I noted, we are literally halfway through the investigation: 2.5 texts into the 5 we started out to look at.

I've learned things. I'm hoping my interlocutors have too.

[Robert Dorman]

Matthew 19:8  He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

From the beginning, this is were we are to look at this question from.  It is like a believer in evolution saying,  "Look how it is, this proves the past," but we know, because of Scripture, that from the beginning it was not so.

To look at it another way, just because I agree to let you steal from me if you agree to let me steal from you, it does not absolve the crime/sin of theft, we would still be guilty. Even if we declare to do it with the most loving feelings for each other it will still be sin, because, this was not how it was to be from the beginning. 

It all revolves around from the beginning, how God first wanted it and how it will be when we get there. If we are not striving by HIS strength to be like it was from the beginning now, we will not be like it then.

From "the Sanctified Life"

"Peter's admonition to abstain from fleshly lusts is a most direct and forcible warning against the use of all such stimulants and narcotics as tea, coffee, tobacco, alcohol, and morphine. These indulgences may well be classed among the lusts that exert a pernicious influence upon moral character. The earlier these hurtful habits are formed, the more firmly will they hold their victim in slavery to lust, and the more certainly will they lower the standard of spirituality.  {SL 28.1}
"Bible teaching will make but a feeble impression upon those whose faculties are benumbed by self-gratification. Thousands will sacrifice not only health and life but their hope of heaven before they will wage war against their own perverted appetites. One lady who for many years claimed to be sanctified, made the statement that if she must give up her pipe or heaven she would say, "Farewell, heaven; I cannot overcome my love for my pipe." This idol had been enshrined in the soul, leaving to Jesus a subordinate place. Yet this woman claimed to be wholly the Lord's! " {SL 28.2)

I, and many others know about these things very intimately.

Beware the lusts that war against your soul.

[Bravus]

I think it's the view of every serious working theologian, and I am quite happy to accept their view in the field of their expertise.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin,
David has not said that in his opinion the English translation is inadequate for building doctrine.  Personally, I do not believe that is his position.  Perhaps you are not listening to what he is actually saying?

 

 

[Bravus]

28 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

Again, what is your source? You claim "It's much more likely...". That sounds like an assumption to me.

What is the source to conclude strange flesh is about race or tribe?

I haven't concluded. I've speculated, marked as such. Most who have speculated that it means homosexuality have not done as much. 

Maybe once we finish with the other texts that's a study we could pursue. 

Pretty much my sole point with that post was that we ought to avoid the Red Queen's approach:

" ‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’ "

[Bravus]

Perspective, not conclusion. And, tentatively at least, 'human understandings', not 'God'. 

No-one needs defending form the true God, and God needs no defense from humans. 

Humans sometimes get it wrong, though, as when they burned 'witches', and I like to hope I'd have defended the minority then too, against human understandings. 

[Pickle]

11 hours ago, David Geelan said:

As are so many of the comments in this thread. Decide ahead of time that homosexuality is the issue, then hey presto, 'strange flesh' is homosexuality. What does the Greek say? In OT context, it's much more likely to be about race and tribe: foreign flesh. If we're using modern words, 'strange' is a slang term for an adulterous partner of the same sex.

It would make far more sense to speculate that it is talking about bestiality. But let's face it. The historical record of Genesis says nothing about interracial marriages or bestiality when talking about Sodom's sins. In light of the historical record, there really is no question as to what "strange flesh" means.

The idea that "strange flesh" means interracial marriages would raise the question as to why God never fried Abraham, since he married an Egyptian. After all, "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh" is the reason why Sodom suffered "the vengeance of eternal fire."

As stated before, the Greek for "strange flesh" literally means "other flesh of a different kind." It's clear enough what it means.

[Bravus]

Read my 'Ally' post again. I defend the bullied, not the bullies. I'm not sure how you got to there from what I said. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Would you defend the KKK?

Defending a person is not the same as defending their ideas.

Further a person or an organization, in our society, should not be convicted of a crime without an opportunity for them to mount a defense which includes pleading their case.  Even the KKK should be given that opportunity, which includes having an impartial judge/jury whether or not they are guilty.

[Robert]

Kevin: " Dave, don't you think it easier to define marriage? Then we know that all else is fornication and sin."

David: "Sure. But if that definition already assumes that a loving, monogamous same-sex marriage is excluded, we're back in 'circular reasoning land."

A component of marriage involves sexual intimacy.  The Bible does not view "monogamous same-sex marriage" intimacy as legitimate love, but rather a perversion.

 Romans 1:26-27: "....God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." (NLT)

[Robert]

3 minutes ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

³¹ For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh

It does not say, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his husband"....

Just saying (as the young folks state)

[Bravus]

I think at this point I will bow out of this thread. It is clear that the opposition is intractable and it doesn't *matter* whether the Bible says something else: interpretations have settled and will be defended to the death. As such, further discussion is simply as waste of time. Let everyone be fully convicted in his (as Gail noted, that pronoun overwhelmingly predominates) own mind. Let God sort 'em out. 

One final thought: everyone knows what GayAtFootOfCross and his allies think and believe, and everyone knows what his detractors think and believe. The latter could stand to let the 'defense rest' a little. 

[GayatfootofCross]

15 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

I think at this point I will bow out of this thread. It is clear that the opposition is intractable and it doesn't *matter* whether the Bible says something else: interpretations have settled and will be defended to the death. As such, further discussion is simply as waste of time. Let everyone be fully convicted in his (as Gail noted, that pronoun overwhelmingly predominates) own mind. Let God sort 'em out. 

One final thought: everyone knows what GayAtFootOfCross and his allies think and believe, and everyone knows what his detractors think and believe. The latter could stand to let the 'defense rest' a little. 

 

 

A lot of people here misunderstand the intent of my name and what i really believe about homosexuality.

I have stated it many times since ..plainly.. since last summer in many other threads. Esp. soon after i arrived with much fanfar.

 

The ones who have taken the time to get to know me are clued in more.

The others foolishly think they know me.

And won't hear of me otherwise.

 

I may have to gonna bow out of this thread also.

If only our church would deeply look into the matter like they used to do with other topic that were misunderstood for maybe thousands of years

 

May the Joy of the LORD be all You's and Queers Strength is my constant Prayer

 

 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

 

 

 

A lot of people here misunderstand the intent of my name and what i really believe about homosexuality.

I have stated it many times since plainly since last summer in many threads.

The ones who have taken the time to get to know me are clued in.

The others foolishly think they know me.

And won't hear of me otherwise.

 

I may have to gonna bow out too.

If only our church would deeply look into the matter like they used to do with other topic that were misunderstood for maybe thousands of years as well

 

May the Joy of the LORD be all You's and Queers Strength is my constant Prayer

 

 

[Bravus]

There's a whole discussion to be had around, *even if we assume that homosexual acts are sinful*, is it sinful to be tempted? Everyone is tempted, and if all sins are equal (in terms of salvation, if not in terms of their consequences here and now), then all temptations are equal. None are worse than any others.

But I'm not sure I see the use in it.

[Bravus]

You completely missed the point I made. The point was that even if the act is sin, the temptation is not. Adultery is sin, temptation is not. Everyone is equally tempted: it is not even-handed to decide that one class of temptations is so much worse than all the rest.

For the purpose of the point I posited (accepted, for the purpose of discussion) the idea that homosexual activity is sinful, and then considered the 'where to from there'.

[Robert]

57 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

Adultery is sin, temptation is not.

"Through one [Adam's] transgression there resulted condemnation to all men" (Rom 5:18).  Adam's transgression polluted his humanity with iniquity (indwelling sin).  Because we all share his life, after the fall, all of us stand condemned.  Therefore the mechanism that tempts us disqualifies us for heaven and brings condemnation.  We can't take "flesh and blood" to heaven. So while temptation is not sin in itself the fact we have "indwelling sin" means we stand condemned!

Adultery is sin when the mind acts upon the temptation.  This occurs both at the thought level and the physical act.

The issue is what do we do when we sin?  Do we repent or do we justify & condone the sin? 

 

 

[LifeHiscost]

20 minutes ago, Robert said:

 

The issue is what do we do when we sin?  Do we repent or do we justify & condone the sin? 

 

 

An answer to the presence of sin.

31I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.....1 Corinthians 15

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[Bravus]

We repent and seek to grow in grace to be delivered from sin. This applies to all of us.

We also repent of the sin of judgement. It is no-one's business but mine, my wife's and God's what, if anything, goes on in my bedroom. The same is true for everyone in the world. Don't assume, don't presume, don't even think about it. It's none of your concern.