Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

What if that "judgement call" is the determination that homosexuality isn't a sin? Is he still righteous?I'm not trying to trip you up with your own words, and I'm sorry if it comes off like that. What I'm trying to do is to sort of plumb your position on homosexuality by taking "soundings", if you will, of exactly how bad homosexuality is compared to how bad you have to be to not be righteous. Why? Only because they can't get married? What sex consitutes "fornication", exactly? Where? Well, now, wait a minute. You're taking his words out of context. Here's the part you didn't quote:

quote:

---

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"

---

Jesus spoke those words to answer a question about divorce and marriage, not homosexuality. I don't see anything in the least "obvious" that leads me to believe that just because Jesus believes marriage is for keeps, that homosexuality is wrong. It just doesn't follow. Heh. You'll pardon me if I'm not convinced. That's equivalent to saying "I love circles, but I hate that they're round." I didn't realize that falling in love with someone and having sex with them was a "lifestyle."

Hi berberry, you might not know me. I use to have the discussions here a while back, in the same thread. In any case due to these forums taking up too much of my time, I've been pretty dormant, so come back only on occasion.Your comment is one of judgement on Lot. Should I be forced to choose between the rape of my son or that of my daughter, sadly I will elect that of my daughter. To a godly man, homosexuality is a terribly deed and sodomy an even greater abomination. Considering that Lot's daughter were still virginal, I highly doubdt Lot didn't care a great deal about them.Peter referred to Lot as a rightous man, in the sense that Lot was the only man that feared God. Lots act of offering his daughters, was not one anyone could be proud of, yet considering the circumstances, morally permissable. Peter did not condone that particular action, but Lot's character in general. Lot had a choice, let his guests be sodomised irrespective of his wishes or actions to try and prevent it, or to offer up his daughters. Not an easy choice to make.The story of Lot is just one to illustrate exactly how anti-homosexual the Mosaic law is.stay well

That's not godliness. That's sexism. Your daughter might get pregnant from the rape. Your son certainly won't. Your daughter could die from the rigors of childbirth. Your son is going to walk bowlegged for a week, at worst.It's mind-boggling that you would choose your son's butt-virginity over your daughter's life. It's a slap in the face for you to declare this on a board in front of women. This is pistols-at-dawn effrontery, I have to say. Naturally, since non-virgin women are useless to anybody. This makes me sick.

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.

ZealotWell to each their own decision but personally I would die in the effort to prevent either of my children from such a thing.To allow a mob to conduct such a deed without your death being the first thing to occur strikes me as cowardice in the extreme.This is why mobs get out of hand because people do not stand up to them.Just take out the loudest proponents and the rest will likely follow as the sheep they are.I don't mean to berate but I simply cannot stomach such a point of view.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

NotAHero says:

quote:

---

I 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.

---

So now the act of offering to pimp out one's virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a mob is a "mistake"? That sure is some moral code you have!

quote:

---

Homosexuality obviously falls into the category of fornication here.

---

Will you please quit saying things are "obvious" when they are in fact anything but?

quote:

---

...and the act of homosexuality has been deemed wicked.

---

By whom? The supreme cowardly pimp Lot? The racist, sexist, homophobic apostle Paul? You?

quote:

---

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.

---

Huh?

quote:

---

For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife...

---

So that any man who doesn't leave mom and dad to go be joined to a wife is living in sin? How do you get from that to homosexuals?

quote:

---

Homosexuality, obviously, does not fall into the original design which Jesus most assuredly promotes.

---

Aside from the continuing misuse of the word 'obviously', your point is not taken. Just because Jesus didn't mention it doesn't mean he would have said that gays have to go straight in order to be "saved" or whatever you call it. He's giving his thoughts on marriage, not damning homosexuals to hell. You don't strike me as being particularly capable when it comes to puting words in Jesus' mouth.

Zealot proclaims:

quote:

---

Should I be forced to choose between the rape of my son or that of my daughter, sadly I will elect that of my daughter.

---

That statement describes you far more than it furthers your point.You born-again types seriously scare me. That you could ever make such a statement in any context whatever should show anyone with any sense of decency at all that you have no moral code whatsoever! Why would you not fight to the death to defend your son AND your daughter from rape?You, sir, are a coward!

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.Perfectly said , it isn't mans role to condemn or judge, we are just people and as people we are not perfect, we make mistakes and always will while in our earthly body's.This post is about homosexuality not Lot, homosexuality is a sin and if you do homosexual acts you are sinning, end of story. Changing the subject won't change that fact.Quote: NotAHero
What a horrible prospect that would be,endless existence.A life without God....and eternity without God, now that's a horrible propect.

shyangel prattles:

quote:

---

This post is about homosexuality not Lot...

---

Then why do you fundies want to use the story of a disgusting, pathetic coward like Lot to condemn homosexuals?

quote:

---

...if you do homosexual acts you are sinning, end of story.

---

And your point is? You and NotAHero both say you sin every day.

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.

shyangelJust to straighten out your quote This is my statement and I would clarify what I mean by it.A long human life time is 100 years.A millenium is 10 times this.Now picture living 1000 times this or one million years.Now let us go to 1,000,000 times that or one trillion years which is on the order of 10 times the life of the universe itself.Now let us multiply that by a trillion years or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
This number does not even register on the the scale of eternity. Indeed no number you can contemplate or even generate with a massively powerful computer would register on an infinite number of years.
Precisely how would you spend eternity my friend?

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

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.

NotAHero recites:

quote:

---

I'm sure even you understand by now that I do NOT agree with his CHOICE. How's that?

---

Not very convincing, I'm afraid. It's the same line you've been using all along. You still say that a man can be rightous and pimp out his virgin daughters to be gang-raped by a mob. Therefore you've learned nothing and you seem to have no sense of decency. Can you tell us why it is that anyone should look to you or the sorry, pathetic excuse for a man Lot for moral guidance?

quote:

---

If you aren't capable of understanding how homosexuality falls into the category of fornication...

---

I see how it falls into your catagory of fornication and probably that of the coward Lot as well, but I don't see why that matters.

quote:

---

It's wicked, like it or not.

---

As I asked you before: according to whom? The coward Lot? The racist, sexist homophobe Paul? You?

quote:

---

Funny how you despise the people with such beliefs...

---

I don't despise you or others like you. I am simply trying to demonstrate that you have low morals. I appreciate the abundant assistance you've given me.

quote:

---

I was asked to give reference to Jesus' condemnation of homosexuality as sin.

---

Which requires that you put words in Jesus' mouth, since he maintained silence on the subject. Thank you again!

quote:

---

...meaning fornication and homosexuality are sin...

---

So now you're suddenly drawing a distinction between the two?

quote:

---

Not once did I say any man that doesn't leave his family and cling to a wife is sinful.

---

No, but you cited a bible passage that does say that and tried to use it to condemn homosexuals. I called you on it. Is this the best defense you can come up with?

quote:

---

Jesus mentions fornication a few times as being wicked and sinful, and as I've stated, fornication includes homosexuality.

---

Yes, you have stated that repeatedly. However you still haven't offered one shred of credible evidence to back it up!

quote:

---

...the plethora of Old and New Testament writings that are in accordance with homosexuality being sin.

---

You brought up the subject of Lot, not me. Let's finish with him before we move on to the rest of your "plethora" of writings.

quote:

---

The evidence we have is overwhelmingly in favor of homosexuality being sin.

---

The ancient writings of barely-civilized men hardly constitute 'evidence'. Do you know what evidence is?

If this is'nt the biggest bunch of homophobic Bull shit I have ever read. JAYYYSUS sed dat fornication is sin. How many divorces by Christians are over looked? HuH>?? How do you know what Jesus said? Where you there? And if homosexuality is condemned in the bible so what? Fundlementalist babtist do a much better job at condemning.Without using the bible. How many Unclean things are eaten in the Ryans restarant after sunday church? Eat shrimp and catfish? But dont fornicate!! Well you can fornicate but by golly dont be gay! Ha! Dear God, please dont let there be anything in that there bible that I cant do without..if so please look the other way or send me a pastor who can justify it. Sheesh.

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.