Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

latter-day says:

quote:

---

True. The Bible is outdated and irrelevant in many respects. So, this is why the Lord Himself has revealed the full truth and has given us more scripture to clarify and compliment the Bible.

---

Thus, the book of Mormon is the result of God saying to himself "you know, I didn't really make myself clear before, perhaps I should have another go at this authorship thing and see if I can do better", eh?Getting back to the topic of this thread, I can't see how it possibly matters whether the bible condemns homosexuality or not. As far as I'm concerned, the bible isn't very helpful as a guide to living.Why is it that fundies only want to enforce bible passages that apply to other people and not themselves? I still know of no fundie movement to outlaw second marriages, even in spite of the very specific words of Jesus in Matthew 19 saying that second marriages are adulterous. Is this because it's so much easier to expand Paul's vague language about temple prostitution and use that to condemn somebody else?Nor have I heard of a single Christian woman who has endured the disgusting Mosaic cleansing rituals after childbirth, even in spite of the fact that Mary found it necessary to do so after the birth of Jesus. I also know of no Christian women who keep their mouths shut in church, despite the clear teachings of Paul that they are to be silent and, if they must speak, wait until they get home and talk to their husbands. Many of them also wantonly ignore Paul's very specific words saying that they must wear hats in church.Thankfully, I also know of no Christian men who believe it is virtuous for a man to abandon his wife and children, despite the clear teachings of Jesus himself in at least two of the gospels.Virtually anyone who condemns homosexuality based on the words of the bible is a hypocrite.

Not only that berberry, but I find it a little hypocrital that homosexuals can not be "legally" married as of yet ; but can hold high stations in the church. Doe anyone not see that as kinda screwy and hypocritical? The bible condemns all manners of things even women but apologist continually select out anything offensive to they're practices. I guess I am not understanding what modern Christians want. But I for one wish all this BS about homosexuals would be once and for all abolished. They deserve to be able to marry, be ministers, be fully represented in the laws of this country. Sheeesh. I live in Texas and we have some screwy "blue laws" that we still adhere to even though most agree they are riduculous No buying beer before noon on Sundays. Dont want you all liquered up before church ya know. Give me a break. You can buy it at 12:01. We live in the year 2004 and it is time America moves forward with this homosexual issue. Your thoughts?

1.61803 writes:

quote:

---

Not only that berberry, but I find it a little hypocrital that homosexuals can not be "legally" married as of yet ; but can hold high stations in the church.

---

That would depend on the church, right? The Episcopal church is the only mainstream faith I know of that allows an openly gay man to serve as bishop. There probably are others, but there are also many churches that shun homosexuals entirely. That's fine as far as I'm concerned. The trouble begins when the churches start trying to make laws that reflect their own cherished ignorance. If they want to impose their own rules on themselves that's fine. If they want to impose their rules on me I have a serious problem and I will fight them with every means at my disposal.

quote:

---

We live in the year 2004 and it is time America moves forward with this homosexual issue.

---

You are absolutely correct; I couldn't agree more!

"Given that animals regularly engage in homosexual behavior are you willing to revise your definition of what is natural and what is not? I mean, if it's done in nature, how can it be unnatural?"To add to the "natural vs unnatural" question, I did my MS work on hermaphroditic shrimp. These shrimp (Lysmata wurdemanni), when mature, are simultaneous hermaphrodites. More significantly, they are all females that retain male reproductive capabilities. While this species lives in large mixed social groups, many congeners form permanent female-female pair bonds (both fertilizing the other as necessary). In all members of the genus individuals start as male only, then grow into a female simultaneous hermaphrodite (called protandric simultaneous hermaphroditism). What this means is that "heterosexual" sex is possible in this species (males are present, at least for 1/4 of their lifespan) just not very common. So unlike certain lizzards which are all female, these shrimp have a choice and yet "choose" to copulate with other females. I guess that must really get under God's skin.Another great example of "natural" homosexuality can be found in acanthocephalans (unique phyum of parasites, mainly on fishes). Some of these use "homosexual rape" to further their own reproductive success. Males of this species, following copulation, secrete a cement plug which prevents other males from copulating with the female. However, when a male encounters another male, they battle and the loser gets "raped". The loser also get his copulatory apparatus cemented shut. Obviously it can be seen why this behavior has a distinct selective advantage.The whole question of natural vs unnatural sex falls apart under scrutiny. The problem is equating sex with reproduction (this point has been made, I know). Natural selection requires that a trait confer selective advantage to the bearer. In humans as well as many other animals sexual behavior is an integral part of social life and therefore carries selective advantages beyond reproduction. If reproductive were the only goal, human females would not have cryptic ovulation. Homosexuality could be an ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy) provided the behavior conferred a selective advantage to relatives (the child-rearing argument, for one). While the ultimate causes in humans are probably much more complex (and varied) than this, there is an example in one species of mongoose (it's been awhile, I don't remember the ref) that has homosexual male offspring (something like 1/4) that never leave home and help rear offspring. The paper I read said something like twice as many offspring survived in households with a heterosexual pair and a homosexual pair were living. Obviously not exactly comparable to humans, but it shows how a trait that causes a fraction of the population to be non-reproductive can persist in mammals.I have really appreciated the great criticsms of Xian homophobia. I can't wait until one of my relatives throws out a biblical justification for their intolerance on this subject. It is amazing how some of these people mine the Bible for the most vague statements to support their position of hatred but ignore or class as "figurative" those things they are or do (second marriages, eating shrimp, to name a few that have been brought up here).

I accidently posted the same message twice and couldn't delete it.[This message has been edited by shyangel, 03-26-2004]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? do not be deceived: Neither the sexualy immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.ROMANS 1:18-32
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.Just some bible verses on what Godthinks of homosexuality, notice women are mentioned too.

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.

NotAHero pontificates:

quote:

---

The Sodomites in Gen. 19:4-8 did not rape the men...

---

No, but they went blind trying didn't they?

quote:

---

but just for ASKING to know them sexually, Lot says "I pray, brethren, you do not so wickedly."

---

Why do you stop there? That's not all Lot had to say to his "brethren", you know. His very next words were: I see what you think of homosexuals, but I'm curious as to what you think of men like Lot who offer their virgin daughters to be gang-raped?

quote:

---

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

---

Which is clearly why Peter referred to Lot as a "Righteous man". It is clearly more moral to have your daughters gang-raped than risk two strangers under your roof being solicited by "that kind". I think this story tell much more about the concept of morality at the time on the Hebrew end. Daughters were a property, like your home or your donkey (I would have used the Biblical ass but was afraid it would have been taken wrong in this context). Lot showed his righteousness by offering a valuable property to the mob and protecting strangers under his roof. While this is despicable, I think it tells a whole lot (no pun...) about the Bible in perspective. If, as the literalists claim, the Bible is the perfect model of morality then the morality it contains should be universal in nature. The Genesis view of women is not one held today by even conservative Christians (not that they view women as equals, but they wouldn't offer their daughter's virginity as an appeasement to protect a stranger, although maybe to secure a slot on TBN). It shows us that the Bible in each passage reflects the cultural ideology of the people at the time each portion was written.With this point I feel it doesn't matter if Leviticus was condemming homosexuality or male temple prostitution. What really matters is that words written for that time and for those people are being used to decide legal policy in my country now. As an aside, and treat this as anectdotal (I heard it from a friend who is a theologist, but I don't know his sources; maybe someone out there knows more of this?), that there were groups in the 1st century that were pure homosexual Christians who had mixed the Christ cult with Greek Aristotlean concepts of pure love only between men. If true it may explain Paul's beef with homosexuality.

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).

I asked what you think of a man who pimps out his virgin daughters to sex-crazed mobs, and you respond that such a man is "for obvious reasons" rightous so long as he has "faith in the one true God".It is only the forum rules and my own sense of decency that prevent me from saying here what I think of you!

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.

You want to use the story of Lot to condemn homosexuals like me, but then you want to agree with Peter when he says that Lot was a rightous man, in spite of the fact that Lot is such a supreme coward that he was perfectly willing to pimp out his virgin daughters to a mob. I am simply trying to be certain that anyone who agrees with your condemnation of gays understands the full context of your "morality".

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.

Shyangel, you offer your two Bible quotes as evidence of what God thinks of homosexuality. Surely they are what PAUL thinks of homosexuality? He was writing to the churches in Corinth and Rome on these matters and so expressed HIS opinion.I have to admit to having a few problems with some of Paul's writings. For example, the orthodox Christian church decided that Jesus was resurrected physically, ie bodily, for example Tertullian, in describing the resurrection, writes in AD 190 that what was raised from the dead was... Paul's argument for bodily ressurection actually concludes with the following suggesting that, although his argument is usually considered to be in favour of bodily resurrection, he is actually meaning the resurrection of the spirit from the body after the death of the body.To this day, Christian faith appears to rest on the fact of the bodily ressurection which Paul doesn't seem to support. Why should we consider that he was right about homosexuality, but wrong about the bodily resurrection? Until recently, the Roman Catholic and many other churches were against cremation on the basis that bodily resurrection couldn't happen if you'd been cremated. Yet Paul is seen as the founder of modern Christianity and his quotes are used all the time to condemn homosexuality. I prefer to think of him as an extraordinary man living an extraordinary life in extraordinary times with extraordinary courage. Doesn't mean that he was always right, though.Edited to reference the quote from Paul[This message has been edited by Trixie, 03-27-2004]