The Bible and Homosexuality

[Pah]

Quick,

We are getting into a "cross-posting" discussion and I think it is my fault.

Permit me to join together our posts and reply to you in a short while.

pah

editted to replace "are" with "our". I really do know better

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

The question in this thread is if homosexuality is actually condemned in the Bible. Yes, it is in both the OT and NT. You cannot raise the point that just because God forbid eating pork that homosexuality is right. Some things are guidelines that God laid down to live a healthy life and some things are said to be imediately immoral and sinful in practice. Homosexuality is one of the later not the former. One must not say one thing is right because another thing is seen as unreasonable. Does the OT saying that eating pork is wrong equally justify robbery or murder?

 

[Pah]

The question in this thread is if homosexuality is actually condemned in the Bible. Yes, it is in both the OT and NT. You cannot raise the point that just because God forbid eating pork that homosexuality is right. Some things are guidelines that God laid down to live a healthy life and some things are said to be imediately immoral and sinful in practice. Homosexuality is one of the later not the former. One must not say one thing is right because another thing is seen as unreasonable. Does the OT saying that eating pork is wrong equally justify robbery or murder?

I take the view that it is not condemmend in the bible - that the references to homosexuality are not the homosexuality of today - that there are other intrepretations of those passages that you would cite that do not censure homosexuality. Perhaps you would like to proceed point-by-point, verse-by-verse.

 

[Pah]

Give me the details of scientific evidence for homosexuality and perhaps I could believe it actually occurs in nature. However, I do not see homosexuality practiced by any other creatures other than humans. We should look at what this thread is really trying to address. Is homosexuality actually condemned in Holy Scripture. The simple answer is yes.

Natural Homosexuality

The linked thread, above, is a short synopsis from the book Evolution's Rainbow which gives much greater detail and all referenced by secondary citations. If you desire to know more, I will respond in PM.

I think the natural occurance of homosexuality is germane to the discussion for the observance of sheep at the time of the writing of the was not documented in the Bible - it is a bit of information that was left out.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Ok here is a direct verse:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”- 1 Cor. 6: 9-10 (NIV)

So there you go. It’s in the Bible

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Also see:

Leviticus 20:13a

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."

Now, I think that is definately the same as today's homosexuality.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

If homosexuality does occur in nature does that make it right?

 

[Pah]

[quote="pah

You have equated homosexuality with criminal offenses - which it is not.

[/quote]

quick:
It isn't criminal today, in some states, but sodomy still is criminal in a many others, and not too long ago, it was criminal in all 50 states. In England only 90 or so years ago, playwright Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for his homosexual behavior.

Since Lawerance v Texas, the Supreme Court has ruled that whatever sodomy laws in existence and sanctioned by Bowers v Hardwick were overruled. It noted in Lawerance that there were only nine states that specifically outlawed homosexual sodomy.

Supreme Court, Lawerance v Texas:
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992).

quick:
My point is simple--where do you draw the line? Either we have a Lawgiver, or we do not. If we do not, then whom do you propose we have determine these rules. Majority vote? Majority vote by scientists? Incest is good breeding, just like in racehorses? Homosexual activism is opening some interesting Pandora's Boxes in our social fabric, and I hear the sound of nylon shredding. How do you propose to put some "rip stop" in your nylon?

The American lawgiver is the legislature in the federal and state governments. The adjudicator of the Constitutionality of each and every law is the US Supreme Court.

Some would say that when rights are denied a minority it is more of a tear in the social fabric for if some rights can be denied then what is to keep other rights intact.

quick:
This all gets back to the entire debate concering cultural relativism that has been raging for decades, and is probably beyond the scope of this thread; however, we need to understand the implication of what is happening today, and the modern homosexual movement is a bellwether

We have had those projections of social doom in many historical societies but the facts of history do not bear them out. Societies have not collasped from moral decay but more from war, economics, and oppression (civil war).

pah:
QUOTE Does that also include the Levitiacal (18:22) injunction against a man lying with a man as with a woman? That commandment is "smack-dab" in the middle of the sexual activity list just below the prohibition of have sex during menses. END QUOTE

quick:
Many of the verses you refer to have to do with ceremonial uncleanliness:

...

The key word is "ceremonially".

Are you saying, as I believe, that the injunction against the "unclean" does not reflect on today's homosexuality?

I refer you to this verse from Romans 14:

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

...

I appreciate your effort in providing the verses regarding the dietary laws from the NT. I wonder if you would consider the Rom 14:2 as applicable to homosexuality?

 

[Pah]

Ok here is a direct verse:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”- 1 Cor. 6: 9-10 (NIV)

So there you go. It’s in the Bible

Homosexual offenders is paired with male prostitutes and both refer to temple "workers". It is more a prohibition against idolatry which was known to be prevelant in Corinith at the time of the writing. That's one different interpretation.

The word "homosexual" is also translated various ways -

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES
effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.
homosexuals, described as:
"men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
"those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
"abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
"practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
"homosexuals," (NASB, CSB);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV);
"sodomites," (NRSV);
"liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
"homosexual perverts." (TEV)

Many of these entries are restricted to gay males; lesbians are often excluded.
male prostitutes,
also described as "men kept for unnatural purposes." It is not clear whether the term "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV, CSB) is restricted to homosexuals or may also include men who are heterosexual prostitutes.

catamites,
also described as "boy prostitute." This is a young male who is kept as a sexual partner of an adult male. (Jerusalem Bible, NAB, James Moffatt)

pederasts:
male adults who sexually abuse boys; an abusive pedophile (an adult who molests young children) or hebephile (an adult who molests post-pubertal teenagers).

pervert:
a person engaged in some undefined sexual perversion. (Phillips)

From -
J. Nelson: "Paul used the Greek word malakoi. They translate it as effeminate and so on. It could mean that; it might not. It can mean soft. Paul was a Jewish theologian. Someone from a Jewish background would consider that behavior unacceptable. Many Greeks did not."

D. Bartlett: "There's considerable debate over what the Greek words mean. We just don't know. I've read most of the debate, and I don't know."

Paul used the word Malakoi instead of arsenokoitai which is considered a direct translation of male homosexuals

All in all, this verse, is not conclusive.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

On the contrary, the passage from Leviticus establishes what homosexuality was seen as back then. It is the exact same as today. I would also like to remind everyone that the term "homosexuality" is a term coined in only the last fifty years or so. However, though the term itself did not exist then, the homosexual act and being a homosexual was known about at that time. The Corinthians passage clearly states the eternal punishment of homosexual behavior. Again, this is not to say the homosexuals are damned straight out. They can turn from their ways and receive forgiveness. Just because the Leviticus passage is "smack dab" in the middle of a whole list of sexual immoralities, does not make it irrelevant. As far as Rom 14:2, it is not wrong to tell someone what they are doing is wrong if it really is. We should not make blind accusations or judgments about people. We must also realize that we too are sinful beings in need of salvation. However, is it not both right and good to help those who are in desperate need of help? It is our duty as Christians to spread the word of Christ forgiveness for all and in the process allow the Holy Spirit to lead sinners to repent and seek salvation in Christ or Lord. We therefore, must defend the law God laid down to us and help others so they do not meet death by that law.

 

[Pah]

LCMS Sprecher:

Leviticus 20:13a

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."

pah:
Now, I think that is definately the same as today's homosexuality.

"Detestable" has been translated as abombinable, unclean and unnatural. In the cultural period of Greece and Rome at the beginnings of the Early Church and earlier, homosexuality was not considered unclean. (I will PM details but not post them).

If I read quick's comments correctly, this verse is intended for "ceremonial purity" and dismissed in the NT.

LCMS Sprecher:

If homosexuality does occur in nature does that make it right?

pah:
I know you do not mean to chalange God's creation. Perhaps you could expound on your thought a bit more.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

You have indeed found a flaw in my argument. I would go to say that homosexuality does not occur naturally in nature and therefore was not created by God. God does not contridict himself and nature would not go against Holy Scripture. As I said before, the Leviticus verses establishes the definition of homosexual relations in the Bible and the Corinthians verse condemns it.

 

[Pah]

On the contrary, the passage from Leviticus establishes what homosexuality was seen as back then. It is the exact same as today.

Actually it is not. I mentioned this in a previous post and will supply details upon request.

I would also like to remind everyone that the term "homosexuality" is a term coined in only the last fifty years or so.

Actually, Paul had opportunity to use the Greek word "arsenokoitai" but did not.

However, though the term itself did not exist then, the homosexual act and being a homosexual was known about at that time.

I agree the "homosexual" in English is a later addition to the lexicon.

The Corinthians passage clearly states the eternal punishment of homosexual behavior. Again, this is not to say the homosexuals are damned straight out. They can turn from their ways and receive forgiveness. Just because the Leviticus passage is "smack dab" in the middle of a whole list of sexual immoralities, does not make it irrelevant. As far as Rom 14:2, it is not wrong to tell someone what they are doing is wrong if it really is. We should not make blind accusations or judgments about people. We must also realize that we too are sinful beings in need of salvation. However, is it not both right and good to help those who are in desperate need of help? It is our duty as Christians to spread the word of Christ forgiveness for all and in the process allow the Holy Spirit to lead sinners to repent and seek salvation in Christ or Lord. We therefore, must defend the law God laid down to us and help others so they do not meet death by that law.

We come around to the question again - how do you authenticate your interpreatation of the Bible and dismiss the others? Each existing interpretation is a work of man and not necessarily the Word of God. What makes your's right?

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

I would ask you to refute these passages then:

“There women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men…” (Ro 1:26-27).

“The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly sinners,…immoral persons, sodomites…and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (I Ti 1:9-10).

 

[Pah]

You have indeed found a flaw in my argument. I would go to say that homosexuality does not occur naturally in nature and therefore was not created by God. God does not contridict himself and nature would not go against Holy Scripture. As I said before, the Leviticus verses establishes the definition of homosexual relations in the Bible and the Corinthians verse condemns it.

Please know that I do not oppose your interpretaion - I only object to the effort to make it the law of the land. I do understand that many view today's society as corrupt and probably not more than I do. However, in our system of rigts and freedoms, I see no other way to safeguard those without the recognition that some evil must exist.

 

[LCMS Sprecher]

Here is refutation of the Homosexual Gene from a recent paper by a Lutheran pastor:

"“Six years ago, molecular geneticist Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced to great fanfare that they had found a genetic link to male homosexuality. Their work indicated, they said, that an as yet unidentified gene on the X chromosone influences who develops the trait (Science, 16 July 1993, p. 321)….[C]linical neurologists George Rice and George Ebers at the University of Western Ontario in London and their colleagues report failing to find a link between male homosexuality and Xq28, the chromosomal segment implicated by the NCI team’s study. In addition, unpublished work from a group led by psychiatrist Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago does not provide strong support for a linkage. Taken together, Rice says, all the results ‘would suggest that if there is a linkage it’s so weak that it’s not important.’”"

 

[Pah]

I would ask you to refute these passages then:

“There women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men…” (Ro 1:26-27).

“The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly sinners,…immoral persons, sodomites…and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (I Ti 1:9-10).

I would agree with this entirely but I think there may be a difference bewteen us iin what constitutes "sodmite". Most biblical scholars do not consider any longer the sin of Sodomy (the place) to be homosexual.

I'm going to give you a link - HOMOSEXUAL PASSAGES CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES: ROMANS 1:26-27

I know this is discouraged in this board but I am tired tonight. It is a "cope out" - I'm sorry But it does show that there are differing views of Romans 1:26-27.

It also seems that you disagree with science in the existence of homosexuality in nature (I missed that in a previous response) You seem to take the Word of God in opposition to what has been amply demonstrated as part of God's creation. That goes to the question of why you would prefer the work of man over the observable work of God? Do you chalange the science? If so, on what basis? I'm pretty sure that most would accept that the earth is round and not as the bible indicates - a flat piece encompassed under a dome

 

[Pah]

My apologies for this second post. I don't know how it got here but probably something I did in my tiredness.

I would ask you to refute these passages then:

“There women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men…” (Ro 1:26-27).

“The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly sinners,…immoral persons, sodomites…and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (I Ti 1:9-10).

I would agree with this entirely but I think there may be a difference bewteen us iin what constitutes "sodmite". Most biblical scholars do not consider any longer the sin of Sodomy (the place) to be homosexual.

I'm going to give you a link - HOMOSEXUAL PASSAGES CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES: ROMANS 1:26-27

I know this is discouraged in this board but I am tired tonight. It is a "cope out" - I'm sorry But it does show that there are differing views of Romans 1:26-27.

It also seems that you disagree with science in the existence of homosexuality in nature (I missed that in a previous response) You seem to take the Word of God in opposition to what has been amply demonstrated as part of God's creation. That goes to the question of why you would prefer the work of man over the observable work of God? Do you chalange the science? If so, on what basis? I'm pretty sure that most would accept that the earth is round and not as the bible indicates - a flat piece encompassed under a dome

 

[Pah]

Here is refutation of the Homosexual Gene from a recent paper by a Lutheran pastor:

"“Six years ago, molecular geneticist Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced to great fanfare that they had found a genetic link to male homosexuality. Their work indicated, they said, that an as yet unidentified gene on the X chromosone influences who develops the trait (Science, 16 July 1993, p. 321)….[C]linical neurologists George Rice and George Ebers at the University of Western Ontario in London and their colleagues report failing to find a link between male homosexuality and Xq28, the chromosomal segment implicated by the NCI team’s study. In addition, unpublished work from a group led by psychiatrist Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago does not provide strong support for a linkage. Taken together, Rice says, all the results ‘would suggest that if there is a linkage it’s so weak that it’s not important.’”"

I agree that the Hamer-Pattatucci study is flawed. The authors were trying to prove that a single gene is responsible for homosexuality when, in fact, if (and I mean IF) genetics plays a role in homosexuality, it will be found that a combination of genes are dominate. There is a great deal of information that nuture (the "growing environment" for each person) plays a role as well. But all this begs the point that homosexuality is not a choice, not completely "cured" by Reparative Therapy, and civil rights for homosexuals are suppressed.

Source - Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden, 2004, University of California Press

 

[anders]

‎"When did you last hear of naughty children or adulterers or witches being stoned?"‎

I thought of
for children, Deut. 21:18-21 "… a stubborn and rebellious son … stone him with stones, that he ‎die"‎
for adulterers, Deut. 22:23-24 "… ye shall stone them with stones that they die"‎
for witches, Ex. 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - OK, no stones mentioned, but ‎stoning being such a popular measure, I assume that this would be the method.

I trust the research that finds that sexual orientation is inborn. If some people seem to start as ‎heterosexuals and later accept their orientation, in all probability this is because they felt ‎forced to repress their nature.‎

A number of posting persons seem to associate homosexuality only with raw sex. From the same-‎sex couples I know, I have got the impression that the primary aspect is love. Who can condemn ‎love? I honour loving couples of any mix of genders more than loveless two-gender relations. ‎Romans 13: 10 "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law".‎

‎“Incest is good breeding, just like in racehorses?” I don’t advocate incest, but it certainly was not ‎condemned in all of the OT. On the contrary, the three Abrahamic religions honour and revere ‎the patriarch Abraham, which must include acceptance of his relation with his sister Sarah (and ‎with several other women). Neither is the behaviour of Lot’s daughters criticised.‎

‎“youngsters … may die by lethal injection as a result of their capital crimes.” Yes, in the USA. ‎The other five countries in the whole world, which allow he execution of minors, are Iran, ‎Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and Yemen. Enjoy the company!‎

In the light of St. Paul’s teachings, the procreation argument against homosexuals falls flat. 1. ‎Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for a man not to touch a woman". Following that advice, the human ‎race would soon be extinct. In such a case, the environment would not complain… Moreover, ‎there are male one-sex couples who liase with female one-sex couples to have a baby. Those ‎children will, in all probability, be brought up in a loving, understanding and tolerant ‎environment.‎