Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

March 30, 2016

I call it like I see it.

I am not always correct.

Sometimes my memory fails me.

March 30, 2016

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 4:34 AM, Green Cochoa said:

Did you read the story about Sodom? Do you realize those perverse men who came to Lot's house wanting the male guests he had invited inside refused to accept Lot's daughters in their place? Their intentions to have homosexual sex can hardly be more clear. And this is not about homosexuality? What does it take to make something about homosexuality?

The men of Sodom believed that they were stealing some life force by raping a man. They honestly believed that if they raped a man that some of the food that would have grown in their victim's garden will now grow in your garden. That some of the kids born to their goats will now be born to your goats. That some of the donkeys that would have been born to his donkeys would be born to your donkeys. That some of the children his wife would have had your wife would now have. The issue was not homosexuality but believing that they were stealing, thinking that through the rape that they could give their wives and children better lives.

March 30, 2016

I think Anddrews in pretty liberal so I'm interested to see the stance taken by SDA scholarship.

There, in the past, have been cases where Andrews faculty have been on a liberal side of Adventism, but hardly "pretty liberal."

However. as a general statement, the Andrews Seminary can hardly be called liberal, in my thinking, at least. Perhaps the best that can be said is that there are some who are conservative and a few who may be moderate.

March 30, 2016

13 hours ago, Kevin(wrx) said:

It already has by those who believe chapter 2 is condemning chapter 1 but there is no reason or evidence chapter 1 was written by anybody else.

There is no conflict between Chapter 1 and chapter 2

I've already answered that argument:

Romans 2:2 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 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 give "hearty approval [to] those who practice" the sins listed in Romans 1:21-31

March 30, 2016

4 hours ago, Robert said:

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

Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and He is just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

March 30, 2016

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The men of Sodom believed that they were stealing some life force by raping a man. They honestly believed that if they raped a man that some of the food that would have grown in their victim's garden will now grow in your garden. That some of the kids born to their goats will now be born to your goats. That some of the donkeys that would have been born to his donkeys would be born to your donkeys. That some of the children his wife would have had your wife would now have. The issue was not homosexuality but believing that they were stealing, thinking that through the rape that they could give their wives and children better lives.

Where did you find that? I haven't seen it in Genesis. And if Jude says that they went after strange flesh, after other flesh of a different kind, how can you say that the issue wasn't homosexual behavior?

March 30, 2016

57 minutes ago, Pickle said:

Where did you find that? I haven't seen it in Genesis. And if Jude says that they went after strange flesh, after other flesh of a different kind, how can you say that the issue wasn't homosexual behavior?

Let me just step in here for a moment while spring is in the air.

Hello Again Pickle!

Strange flesh is unlike our own flesh.

Same sex rape is same flesh. Two men! Same parts! Same Flesh!

I believe Jude looking back on the story is telling of strange flesh cause it is unlike human flesh they went after

Strange means unlike our own,

Angelic!.

May the Joy of the Lord be your Strength!

And mine!

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

The men of Sodom believed that they were stealing some life force by raping a man. They honestly believed that if they raped a man that some of the food that would have grown in their victim's garden will now grow in your garden. That some of the kids born to their goats will now be born to your goats. That some of the donkeys that would have been born to his donkeys would be born to your donkeys. That some of the children his wife would have had your wife would now have. The issue was not homosexuality but believing that they were stealing, thinking that through the rape that they could give their wives and children better lives.

Hello Kevin H.

We are at such a disadvantage lensing everything thru our own modern culture and even biases since antiquity.

Thank you for giving insight to something that we don't generally relate to in out self proclaimed sophisticated societies.

May also the Lord be your Strength as well ..is my Prayer!

# and here i thought homosexual rape was all about humiliation and violence and domination

hmmm..

March 30, 2016

I am really dumbfounded by the amount of energy used to condone the practice of homosexuality here on this forum. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

March 30, 2016

20 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

Let me just step in here for a moment while spring is in the air.

Hello Again Pickle!

Strange flesh is unlike our own flesh.

Same sex rape is same flesh. Two men! Same parts! Same Flesh!

I believe Jude looking back on the story is telling of strange flesh cause it is unlike human flesh they went after

Strange means unlike our own,

Angelic!.

Do you have any evidence that the Sodomites knew that Lot's two guests were angels? And since Abraham's intercession shows that destruction was already imminent, are you saying that the Sodomites were already before that incident trying to rape angels?

In reality, "other flesh of a different kind" can easily refer to homosexual actions, since such activity by definition involves flesh of a different kind. I know a homosexual who acknowledged that the plumbing wasn't created to work that way. Throughout the realm of nature, sexual activity serves a specific purpose, and that purpose is impossible within the context of homosexual actions.

For these reasons, I don't see how anyone can dispute what Jude was referring to.

March 30, 2016

50 minutes ago, Pickle said:

Do you have any evidence that the Sodomites knew that Lot's two guests were angels? And since Abraham's intercession shows that destruction was already imminent, are you saying that the Sodomites were already before that incident trying to rape angels?

In reality, "other flesh of a different kind" can easily refer to homosexual actions, since such activity by definition involves flesh of a different kind. I know a homosexual who acknowledged that the plumbing wasn't created to work that way. Throughout the realm of nature, sexual activity serves a specific purpose, and that purpose is impossible within the context of homosexual actions.

For these reasons, I don't see how anyone can dispute what Jude was referring to.

"I believe Jude looking back on the story is telling of strange flesh cause it is unlike human flesh they went after" - Gay

Pickle Hello again.. I ask that you look up my wording.

Did the sodomites know they were angelic ? I have my doubts.

But Jude certainly does knows!

March 30, 2016

11 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

"I believe Jude looking back on the story is telling of strange flesh cause it is unlike human flesh they went after" - Gay

Pickle Hello again.. I ask that you look up my wording.

Did the sodomites know they were angelic ? I have my doubts.

But Jude certainly does knows!

Similarly, look up my wording. The Sodomites were already slated for destruction before the two angels ever got to the gates, much less Lot's home. What angels do you think the Sodomites had already tried to rape before that last night? If you can't come up with any, then your proposed interpretation of Jude's words cannot possibly be correct.

Do you have any other example of where people were destroyed by God for the crime of doing something they had no idea they were doing?

Jude describes a two-fold crime: (a) giving themselves over to fornication, and (b) going after strange flesh. In my view, fornication includes all sexual perversions, and thus includes homosexual actions, among other things. If Jude is looking back at the story of Genesis, a point of agreement, what in that story would constitute fornication, if not homosexual actions?

March 30, 2016

41 minutes ago, Pickle said:

Similarly, look up my wording. The Sodomites were already slated for destruction before the two angels ever got to the gates, much less Lot's home. What angels do you think the Sodomites had already tried to rape before that last night? If you can't come up with any, then your proposed interpretation of Jude's words cannot possibly be correct.

Do you have any other example of where people were destroyed by God for the crime of doing something they had no idea they were doing?

Jude describes a two-fold crime: (a) giving themselves over to fornication, and (b) going after strange flesh. In my view, fornication includes all sexual perversions, and thus includes homosexual actions, among other things. If Jude is looking back at the story of Genesis, a point of agreement, what in that story would constitute fornication, if not homosexual actions?

I only stepped in here to let you know that Jude knew it was foreign flesh.

Yes Sodom was going to be destroyed. It just so happens that the depravity is recorded of that day. I am sure worst stuff was happening before then(not evolving angels).

Seeing that God destroyed the world in the flood ..siting every imagination of the heart was evil and violence ruled the land.I believe that is also the case with Sodom.

Ezekiel also tells the sins of Sodom

“Your sister Sodom and her daughters were proud. They had too much to eat and too much time on their hands, and they did not help poor, helpless people. ⁵⁰Sodom and her daughters became too proud and began to do terrible things in front of me. So I punished them!" Eze16:49,50

Sounds like it was ripe for destruction.

The "homosexual actions" were rape by rapists. which is an act of violence not two consensual men and romance . and I am sure fornication went on there too. Always have everywhere!

Evil took that to a whole new level also?

There are homosexual actions that does not evolve rape or angels.

A splendid word study on "fornication" maybe in order.

I was always taught it was sex with someone outside Blessed Union.

umm ..not to be confused with Adultery which is sex breaking the Bonds of a Blessed Union.

Which is the only sex mentioned in the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

I am sure that went on too.

All the bad stuff!

Wearing white shoes after Autumn!

Chewing gum in class!

Running with Scissors!

All bad

looking at your post again ..I must say I don't nec. follow your train of thought in all this.

Jude is writing an example of how evil Sodom is.... the events of that day.

again much worse may have happened before..And Im not thinking of an annual rape an angel picnic.

GOD is so good to step in. Imagine the horrors of generational child abuse and no respect for human life.

Depravity and Void of Compassion hitting all human relations in the worst violent ways in the four Cities in the luscious land.

Between the Genesis, Ezekiel, and Jude accounts ..I think we only catch a slight glimpse of how bad it really was.

God is the most wonderful love BEING in all the Universe, Pickle!

March 30, 2016

16 hours ago, Pickle said:

* * *

Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.

Do you honestly think Isaiah was saying that the Sodomites were having Plenty-of-Food- and Idleness-Pride Days and Parades? That they were publicly condemning as bigots and intolerant those who said that the citizenry should be working more, shouldn't have as much food, and should be more humble? No, it seems much more plausible that Isaiah is talking about coming out of the closet and publicly flaunting the type of moral perversions that Genesis depicts.

* * *

First of all, If you will read through this entire thread and the other related one, the explanation is there, so I will not repeat it. You can go and read it yourself.

The answer to your questions above is an emphatic "yes!" The message of Isaiah in this passage is very much consistent with the statement of Ezekiel of what the sin of Sodom really was that marked them for destruction. (Long before the threatened rape scene played out, I might add. Threatening to rape the angels, thought to be male humans, was not the reason, the sin, that got Sodom destroyed.) Read the whole chapter 3 of Isaiah, especially note verses 14 and 15. It gives the context and identifies the sin in question that God's judgment against his people is directly about. And there is not even the slightest hint of sexual sin of any sort. It is about the oppression of the poor.

March 30, 2016

2 hours ago, Robert said:

I am really dumbfounded by the amount of energy used to condone the practice of homosexuality here on this forum. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

Hi Robert!

There was a time when both Society and the Church looked down and hated homosexuals.

It wasn't that long ago when police in major cities would go to the places where gays congregate and arrest them just for drinking together.

Family taking members for Electric shock treatments

Humiliated in newspapers if arrested for solicitations or what have you.

Killed along Jews in prison camps in Germany.

Banned from good Christian homes.

Declaring AIDS is GODs bloodthirsty revenge

The word FAGGOT originally meant a bundle of sticks to be burned (look it up in an old old dictionary). the name crossed over cause of all the murders and setting on fire gays for eons.

"He was a real flaming Faggot!"

I met a very old gay man who was going into medical school and read that word "Homosexual" out loud to his Mom not quite knowing what it meant. She slapped her grown son hard in the face for even saying it.

Yes the Society(culture) looked down on God's Children for ages. The Church was happy.

let em burn let em rot let em die

but not any more

Our Society now and slowly(in large pockets) looking at homosexuals as humans deserving of Respect and Dignity and our most personal choices deserving the same as our Heterosexual counterparts.

And so many gays not having sex is a fact..doesn't seem to be understood either

You Robert are expressing it well.

The church was happy and satisfied in their treatment and dogma ... but not anymore!

If only our Church were to study this like it studies hell and the Sabbath..the Church might find things it didn't see was there before.

This thread is dedicated to look deeper and to challenge our own preconceived ideas with just the surface reading.

BTW no one is saying homosexuality is not sin.

You will never find me saying that also.

and one more thing Robert ..

May the Joy of the LORD be your Strength!

March 30, 2016

57 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

The church was happy and satisfied in their treatment and dogma ... but not anymore!

My preceding Post is not about acceptance of sin

But how people are looking upon people.

There was so much evil perpetrated in God's name in history.

God is moving hearts to stand up for the rejects,marginalized and the non normatives.

The Church (in tiny pockets..baby steps) is getting this a bit.

It is not satisfied with A God who is so unlike Jesus Treatment of the peripheral peeps.

Do we have to change basic theology about the topic? perhaps..perhaps not!

Do we need a deeper unbiased look in order to understand it enough not to lord it over a group of people and shut them out?

O yes! most Definitely!

That is my intent sharing on this thread.

March 30, 2016

1 hour ago, GayatfootofCross said:

BTW no one is saying homosexuality is not sin.

You will never find me saying that also.

It seems some here are justifying it....

March 30, 2016

I don't see it as an either/or but a BOTH (the sins of Sodom). When people have too much time on their hands and all they could wish for then it is a small hop to not only deny those less fortunate and oppress others but also think of creative ways to pleasure themselves. And pleasure themselves they did, to the expense of the have-nots.

March 30, 2016

1 hour ago, GayatfootofCross said:

There was a time when both Society and the Church looked down and hated homosexuals....Humiliated ....Killed a... banned

I can't control how the self-righteous react to homosexuality, but neither should we as a church condone it as a lifestyle. The same is true with other sins.

March 30, 2016

3 hours ago, Robert said:

I am really dumbfounded by the amount of energy used to condone the practice of homosexuality here on this forum. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

With Paul talking abut how being absent from this body and being present with the Lord, and the Parable of the Richman and Lazarus I am dumbfounded by the amount of energy that Seventh-day Adventist use to say that the dead don't go to heaven or hell at death. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

The point is that as you study the context and the history of the "Proof Texts" it is not as clear cut as we wish. Robert, I am someone who has always been sickened by the idea of homosexuality. However, I need to be fair to the context of the texts and not read into them the same types of ideas that Sunday Keepers read into the Rich man and Lazarus or Paul's present with the Lord. Even though the traditional interpretation sounds good to me, what good is it if we are being unfair to scripture?

March 30, 2016

5 hours ago, Pickle said:

Where did you find that? I haven't seen it in Genesis. And if Jude says that they went after strange flesh, after other flesh of a different kind, how can you say that the issue wasn't homosexual behavior?

Old Testament Studies. This has been found in archaeological and historic studies and taught in our colleges (yes even in the conservative colleges) for decades and agreed upon by our theologians on both sides of the issue.

March 30, 2016

3 hours ago, GayatfootofCross said:

looking at your post again ..I must say I don't nec. follow your train of thought in all this.

Jude is writing an example of how evil Sodom is.... the events of that day.

again much worse may have happened before..And Im not thinking of an annual rape an angel picnic.

GOD is so good to step in. Imagine the horrors of generational child abuse and no respect for human life.

Depravity and Void of Compassion hitting all human relations in the worst violent ways in the four Cities in the luscious land.

Between the Genesis, Ezekiel, and Jude accounts ..I think we only catch a slight glimpse of how bad it really was.

God is the most wonderful love BEING in all the Universe, Pickle!

Sure He's loving, and that's why He has condemned homosexual actions with such clarity, giving Sodom as an example. It's because of love.

I think it clear that Jude is telling us that a major problem with Sodom was homosexual actions.

March 30, 2016

42 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Old Testament Studies. This has been found in archaeological and historic studies and taught in our colleges (yes even in the conservative colleges) for decades and agreed upon by our theologians on both sides of the issue.

Mere assertions don't make it true. I remember how a college professor explained that the reason God forbade cross dressing was because that was involved in pagan worship. Then I discovered how the Ency. Britt. said that the Hittites forbade bestiality, except with horses, because that was part of the ancient horse sacrifice. Such reasoning then leads us to conclude that bestiality today is fine, unless it's part of pagan worship.

I seriously doubt that you can produce any archaeological finds that show us what the ancient Sodomites believed.

March 30, 2016

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

First of all, If you will read through this entire thread and the other related one, the explanation is there, so I will not repeat it. You can go and read it yourself.

The answer to your questions above is an emphatic "yes!" The message of Isaiah in this passage is very much consistent with the statement of Ezekiel of what the sin of Sodom really was that marked them for destruction. (Long before the threatened rape scene played out, I might add. Threatening to rape the angels, thought to be male humans, was not the reason, the sin, that got Sodom destroyed.) Read the whole chapter 3 of Isaiah, especially note verses 14 and 15. It gives the context and identifies the sin in question that God's judgment against his people is directly about. And there is not even the slightest hint of sexual sin of any sort. It is about the oppression of the poor.

If vss. 14 and 15 don't compare Israel with Sodom, I think your point is irrelevant. Just because vs. 9 says that they declare their sin like Sodom doesn't mean that everything about them was like Sodom. It was the being out-of-the-closet that was the same.

Perhaps Israel was having Oppress-the-Poor Parades, if that is what you are trying to say. Is that what you are trying to say?

Something had to be out of the closet. Homosexual practices were. If an entire city's men wanted to rape two travellers, homosexual practices were out of the closet.

March 30, 2016

Quote

With Paul talking abut how being absent from this body and being present with the Lord, and the Parable of the Richman and Lazarus I am dumbfounded by the amount of energy that Seventh-day Adventist use to say that the dead don't go to heaven or hell at death. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

Yes, I believe we should devote many hours over years and years on this forum to that subject!!!

March 30, 2016

(I've dropped out of this thread, and will drop back out after a couple of comments)

Pickle's insistence that 'strange flesh' (sarkos heteros) in Jude refers to homosexuality because that is what it suggests to him is contrary to the actual meaning of Scripture. Here's one source where people are digging into the meaning of the expression. The case for interpreting it as being about homosexuality is extremely weak: http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/19854/in-jude-7-what-is-strange-flesh

Robert said:

Quote

I am really dumbfounded by the amount of energy used to condone the practice of homosexuality here on this forum. This shouldn't be a contentious point among Christians.

You may need to read more closely, because I am not actually reading anyone involved in this discussion as condoning the practice of homosexuality. The distinction between actions and orientations is often used extremely loosely, and many are making the case that those with this orientation should not be judged, rather than arguing about actions.

Kevin(wrx) has said multiple times 'there is no evidence Romans 1 was written by someone else', but that's not the argument being made at all. It's accepted that Paul wrote all of it. The issue is about the style of writing and the rhetorical strategy being used by Paul.

The reason I dropped out of the thread, and will again now, is that there appears to be much appetite to read assumptions and prejudices into the texts, and very little appetite to seek to determine what the texts actually meant to their writers in the language, time and culture when they were written.

Sign In

Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

Recommended Posts

Gregory Matthews

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Gail

Kevin H

Bravus

Kevin H

Gregory Matthews

Robert

Robert

Pickle

GayatfootofCross

Robert

Pickle

GayatfootofCross

Pickle

GayatfootofCross

Tom Wetmore

GayatfootofCross

GayatfootofCross

Robert

Gail

Robert

Kevin H

Kevin H

Pickle

Pickle

Pickle

CoAspen

Bravus

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity