Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

The Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality as a sin, just as it does murder, adultery, and the like. Above are good passages, and the following information should be useful as well:The greek word used in 1 Cor. 6:9 that is translated as "homosexuality" is "malakos" which literally means "of uncertain affinity." How any pro-homosexual or liberal Christian cannot see the clear implications of the word used is beyond me, though they deny the translation of "homosexuality" being correct.Also, for those who argue that Sodom and Gomorrah's sin was simple a lack of welfare for people etc... I offer the following:
The Sodomites in Gen. 19:4-8 did not rape the men, but just for ASKING to know them sexually, Lot says "I pray, brethren, you do not so wickedly." Would an act that wasn't sinful be called wicked? Not only does that passage make it clear, but Jude 7 makes reference as well...Jude 1:7 states, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, 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." Obviously, sexual immorality was part and parcel of Sodom and Gomorrah's downfall.

Well, obviously I don't agree with what Lot did by offering his daughters. I'm not sure why you'd ask that question in the first place. The Bible never condones those actions of Lot either. 2 Peter simply states, for obvious reasons, that Lot was a righteous man. In the context and manner used, this does not mean Lot was perfect(we know from the Bible that ALL fall short of the glory of God and none are righteous), it meant that Lot had faith in the one true God and righteousness was alotted to him as it was to Abraham and all those who put their faith in God until the first coming of Christ. The Bible is an historical work too, so just because documentation of immoral acts, stupidity, etc... by people such as Lot or whomever are recorded, you have to keep in mind that that doesn't automatically, by default, mean that it's taught as a good thing by scripture(which should be obvious, but hey).

You do realize that you asked what I thought and I responded by not only saying I didn't agree with Lot's actions, but that I also labeled them as immoral and stupid, right? In my opinion, that's a pretty clear view on the man's actions. I guess the reason I didn't take 5 paragraphs to express my view on Lot's behavior is because it was a ridiculous question to ask in the first place, hence why I wasn't sure why you'd even ask.

Berberry,
I do not condemn anyone, that is not my role. This thread is simply about whether or not the Bible views homosexuality as sin. I used the instance in Lot as supporting evidence for this view, period. Again, you miss the bus on where my morality stands because you automatically assume that because I agree Lot was a righteous man(already explained above what this entails and perfection/100% moral decision making, etc...isn't part of it) I readily accept any and all of his actions as being righteous as well. This is simply not my position, nor has it ever been. However, I see why you'd assert that it is and put me into that light because it makes me out to be the hypocritical, double-standard Christian you'd like me to be, or so it would seem. Being righteous in the eyes of God does not mean being perfect. Lord knows I sin daily, as do we all. This, the Lord understands and thankfully, perfection is not a prerequisite to being able to receive His grace and gift of atonement for these sins. Again, I was just providing further evidence that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality as a sin, nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully this will clear things up, I'm sorry for any confusion.

It's obvious that my clear, rational explanation of Lot and the "righteousness" that is spoken of will continue to be ignored because of the bias axiom you hold. I'm sorry you so desperately want to paint me with the brush of immorality that you conveniently ignore rather simple explanations that meet and exceed what the normal person would deem adequate. Perhaps you can further misconstrue my statements and position, but you'll have to do so without further comment on my part.

TrixieI think it's important to not take that verse out of context but to examine 1 Cor. 15:35-58 in its entirety concerning the resurrection. Paul in no way asserts that the resurrection won't be physical, he simply makes the distinction between the flesh/blood, corrupted, sinful bodies we inhabit now which are "terrestrial" and the glorified, sinless, "celestial" body which will be raised in "incorruption." 1 Cor. 15:50 just specifies that the current, earthly bodies we inhabit now aren't suited for the Kingdom. I suggest a deeper reading into the surrounding texts in order to get the idea of what Paul is conveying.

TrixieNo, I am saying it IS a bodily resurrection. We will indeed be given new bodies. What I'm saying, and believe Paul conveys, is that the bodies we inhabit now are corrupted because of sin and are therefore only suitable for life on earth as we know it. There is no reason to believe the resurrection will simply be a "spiritual" thing because we are told in Phil. 3:20-21 that our body will be transformed to that of a "glorious body" which Christ also has. We know Christ has a physical body because people not only saw Him after the resurrection, but Thomas himself put his fingers into the holes where the nails had pierced. Our corrupted bodies will inevitably perish and afterwards, we will await the resurrection when our spirit is reunited with our body again, only our bodies will be the "glorious" ones spoken of which will be suited for Kingdom life in eternity. That's my view.

CrashWelcome to this discussion too! I think it all depends on which way we're looking at the word "righteous." I truly believe, as the Bible says, that all of us, as humans, fall short of the glory of God and are sinners. Therefore, I don't think any of us are truly righteous, only God alone is. However, when Christ is accepted as Lord and Savior, His righteousness He gave up in exchange for our sin is therefore alotted to us. Obviously, Christians still sin, but the "righteous" part comes in on the day of judgement where we're seen by God clothed in Jesus' righteousness and not in our own sin. I hope that short explanation makes sense. So, about the question of whether or not a righteous man can be gay. My answer is no. Let me give a quick explanation. Someone who adheres to a sinful lifestyle who, first of all denies the act as sin, but who is unrepentant, I don't believe is "righteous" in the way described above because having accepted Jesus as Lord would not lead someone to continue that sin. However, with that being said, I do believe there are Christians(who would be deemed righteous on the day of judgement because of accepting Christ) who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle or struggle with homosexual lusts, who do not continue or fall into the lifestyle, but who are repentant and are given strength to overcome that sin. As I said earlier, all Christians sin and for some, homosexuality and homosexual lusts could easily be a sin that they struggle with. I hope that clears things up a bit.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was talking about 2 distinct bodies, that's not what I meant. Basically, to put it simply, our buried, corrupted bodies that die WILL be raised, but they'll be given a "tune-up." However, in the case that you are burned to death, eaten by a shark, or whatever, there's no reason to believe that God, when the resurrection occurs, won't re-create your same body in the "glorious" form. So...when we die, our physical, corrupted body is buried and our spiritual form is with the Lord. When the resurrection occurs, our spiritual form is then reunited with our SAME body, it's just "tuned-up" to be suitable for life in the Kingdom. Meaning no sin, aging, physical infirmities, and the like. Making any sense now, hopefully?

SidelinedYou are correct in your assumption.

CrashI believe even a man saved by faith who will be seen as righteous before the Lord can indeed make a sinful mistake, such as offering his daughters up to a mob. As I stated above(somewhere, lol), Christians sin daily too. We are not righteous in the sense that we are perfectly holy as God is, but we are righteous in the sense that our faith has been placed in Jesus whose righteousness is given to us in exchange for our sin on the day of judgement. So yes, I do believe a righteous man can sin and make immoral judgement calls. As far as Jesus' thoughts on homosexuality, I'll do my best to point out a few scriptures that will shed light on it. Now, remember, an argument from silence isn't a strong argument at all. So, just because Jesus didn't come right out and say "thou mayest not follow me and be gay," doesn't mean He wasn't opposed to it, because I believe, as I will hopefully show, that He was. Here are a few scriptural references...Matthew 15:19-20 says, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." Homosexuality obviously falls into the category of fornication here.Mark 7:21 says very similar to the above but includes "wickedness" and "lewdness." Sinful acts are often called wicked and the act of homosexuality has been deemed wicked.John 16:8-9 says, in reference to the Spirit, "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father and you see Me no more; of judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged." Following this up, Jesus says in John 16:14, "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." Now, if the the Spirit is convicting the world of sin and does so while glorifying and declaring what is Jesus', than that, by default, includes the sin of homosexuality.Matthew 19:4-6 says, "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." This is a clear description of the original intent of God creating man/woman relationships and what they are supposed to be. Homosexuality, obviously, does not fall into the original design which Jesus most assuredly promotes.Let me just say that simply because we're discussing homosexuality, as sin in the Bible, that I don't love homosexuals, because I do. I do not agree with the sin(nor any sin, for that matter), but, just as Jesus did, I do love the sinner. I don't want any of this to be somehow misconstrued, as some calling themselves Christians often do, to be an open invitation to bash gays or their lifestyle. Hopefully the above scriptures helped out a bit.

The judgement call I'm referring to is that of a decision that is made at that moment, not a choice to live a certain way. Similar to whether or not you decide on cotton candy or peanuts while at the circus. You make a decision right then and there depending on the circumstance. Lot, as Zealot so eloquently put it, had to make a choice which involved the lesser of two bad choices. So, therefore, I don't believe the "judgement call" of homosexuality even exists.Fornication is sex outside of the marital context. We know the Biblical example of marriage is one man and one woman. That is how homosexuality falls into the fornication category. The greek word used also describes harlotry which constitutes prostitution, but the word "fornication" was enough to sum up all types of sexual immorality without having to individually label each and every form.Calling homosexual acts "wicked" is in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah where Lot tells the men not to do so wickedly. Sodom and Gomorrah was indeed a city of wickedness and from Jude 7 we understand this to include sexual immorality.The question by the Pharisees, although an important one, is somewhat irrelevant to the reason why I used this passage. If Jesus spoke of the original intent of marriage and we clearly see that it's between one man and one woman, than there is obviously no other hypothetical that is just as good, ie: homosexuality. It should be blatantly obvious that God created man who, God Himself thought should not be alone, would inevitably be in relationship with woman in the context of marriage and that anything outside of that context is sinful(hence why Jesus said, "let not man separate.)" Therefore, we have repeated Biblical references to sexual immorality of all kinds, including adulteries, fornication, and homosexuality.Thankfully, convincing you that I love people isn't what I'm here to do. You'll pardon the short answer, but loving people out of a not only sinful lifestyle, but one that has incredible unhealthy repercussoins is loving no matter your view.There's nothing wrong with loving people. I love my friends, family, etc...whether male of female. The sin is giving yourself over to the sexual temptation and living a lifestyle that is unnatural and clearly against God's intent. Same reason that there's nothing wrong with loving a woman but having sex with her outside of the marital context is also sin because it goes against God's intent.

BerberryI agree, "mistake" probably wasn't the best word of choice. Chalk one up to berberry for the astute semantic observation. However, since you've grilled me repeatedly, I'm sure even you understand by now that I do NOT agree with his CHOICE. How's that? If you aren't capable of understanding how homosexuality falls into the category of fornication, then why are you even a part of this thread giving a view on it?It's wicked, like it or not. Funny how you despise the people with such beliefs, yet throw around derogitory terms based on their actions with such ease. Double-standard much?I was asked to give reference to Jesus' condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Homosexuality fits into the category of fornication. The Spirit convicts the world of sin in accordance with what Jesus says. Obviously this shows that Jesus is against homosexuality without specifically saying, "I, Jesus, am against homosexuality" as many gays seem to require to believe He truly was.I said the sin was going against God's original intent as it pertains to marriage(meaning fornication and homosexuality are sin). Not once did I say any man that doesn't leave his family and cling to a wife is sinful. Give me a break, Berberry, and quit continuing to misconstrue my words with your malicious intent, it's becoming rather annoying and lacks of dignity.Well, I suppose what's obvious to some is much harder to grasp by those with axioms that prevent them from seeing beyond their own ignorance. You're right, just because Jesus didn't mention it, doesn't mean anything. Funny, though, how that argument works both ways; for and against homosexuality. Jesus mentions fornication a few times as being wicked and sinful, and as I've stated, fornication includes homosexuality. The fact that Jesus never specifically, by name, says homosexuality is a sin is a green light to many gays to say Jesus never condemned it. However, if you say that Jesus' silence doesn't mean he was condemning gays but only giving His thoughts on marriage, well then, logically, His silence could mean that His thoughts on marriage are the ONLY acceptable way and anything outside of that is sin. See, an argument from silence is ridiculous. That is why we use the example Jesus gave of marriage, the OBVIOUS design of man and woman, the plethora of Old and New Testament writings that are in accordance with homosexuality being sin, and so on. The evidence we have is overwhelmingly in favor of homosexuality being sin.

What's not to like about spending eternity with the One who created us? Our very existence, from the beginning, is to spend it in fellowship with the Lord. Anything we have here on earth isn't comparable, nor comprehensible to what eternity with God will be like. So, forget what a thousand lifetimes on earth would be like, because it will be nothing even close.

I've explained the meaning of the word righteous in the context used by Peter and so has someone else. If you continue to overlook it to support your ideology, there's nothing I can do.Fornication includes homosexuality which in turn classifies homosexuality as sin...for the umteenth time.According to everyone who makes mention of Sodom and Gomorrah.So, you don't despise but you think throwing out derogitory names is somehow beneficial and supports a positive outlook of these people on your behalf?I already demonstrated how an argument from silence is no argument at all, yet you, not surprisingly, continue to use it. Bravo my friend, bravo.The reason I was drawing a distinction was in reference to the marriage context and I used fornication to describe pre-marital HETEROsexual sex. That's why the distinction was made, obviously in context. Thank you for taking it out of context in a poor attempt to make me seem foolish while, consequently, making yourself out to be one. The Bible passage not once says that not leaving the family and clinging to a wife is sin. Perhaps you should read the Bible first and then formulate arguments? The passage was used to show the marital relationship as it was intended...one man, one woman, end of story.Fornication as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each another." Now, as I understand it, the only marriage ever condoned and expressly promoted in the Bible is that between a MAN and a WOMAN. This definition alone incriminates the act of homosexuality.Not only did I bring up the subject of Lot, but the subject has been beaten to death since you can't seem to understand how a "righteous" man can sin. Think of the best person you know. You consider him/her to be the BEST person on earth. Now, if that person were to commit a sin, which he/she obviously does daily, would you automatically denounce that person as not being good anymore solely based on that one stupid decision or act of immorality? I surely hope not. You'd disagree with the decision, probably talk to them about it, forgive them, and move on. Is it you have a hard time doing this for Lot because he's a Biblical character and is supporting evidence that homosexuality is wrong?The evidence are the writings of the Bible because the THREAD IS ABOUT WHETHER THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HOMOSEXUALITY. Goodness, sir, you really ought to pay more attention to the subject at hand when you're asking questions about evidence and it's right there in front of you.