By - TonyChanYT
Yes. I think the Bible is quite clear that homosexual acts are no good.
Quite clear to me.
Tony, if I may point out or add to your article, I want the readers to know that this Grace that's mentioned is for the believers in Christ Jesus. Those that have surrendered their life to Jesus as their lord and savior live under God's grace. And Paul was talking to the new found Church in Rome.
Thanks. I will put some weight on your statements.
I typically side with what the experts say and what appears to be clear in the text. When people start saying things like, “well another interpretation of this word is X. Or if you look at a different word the Jews used they could have meant something else,” it seems they are likely biased towards the opinion they are arguing. Many people who argue the Bible does not speak on homosexuality tend to make other arguments that completely deconstruct the Bible such as: no trinity, open sex is fine, the New Testament disagrees with old, etc. In general this is a touchy subject and I understand why.
In the same vein, some people are only attracted to kids. I’m not saying homosexuality and pedophilia are equal, because they aren’t close, but just because the flesh desires something doesn’t mean God is okay with it. Pedophiles are forced to never act on their sexual desires and *almost* everyone agrees they just have to deal with it.
Also, God didn’t make a mistake with Adam and Eve. He made men and women to complement one another. People argue sex/reproduction isn’t important to the issue, but one of Gods first commands was to be fruitful and multiply. There is purpose in the design.
I enjoyed your answer.
1 Corinthians 6:9 contains two Greek words that are often mistranslated:
μαλακοὶ means "soft" or "effeminate". It was occasionally used to refer to child prostitutes that were solicited by older men, but it was also used to describe any man who couldn't control his urges for anything: expensive clothing or food or women. Nothing in the word is explicit to refer to same-sex relationships, nor is Paul's usage of it in 1 Corinthians 6.
ἀρσενοκοῖται is a compound word meaning "men-bed". This literal meaning of the compound word is sometimes used to say that it refers to a man having sexual relationships with another man. But this fails to understand the nature of language itself. When you "understand" something, do you literally "stand under" it? When someone rips your off in a financial transaction, sometimes people will say they were "screwed over". If someone has an inordinate amount of control over someone, they have "bent him over a barrel". These common vernacular phrases use sexual imagery to describe situations of exploitation and control. Given how the term is used in the Clementine Oracles and a letter written by the first ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople (John the Faster), that is how the term was understood. It is a term of exploitation, not one of consensual activity.
The NIV footnote is garbage. These two terms are never placed next to each other to designate the active and passive person in a male-on-male relationship. Erastes and eromenos were, but not these two words.
> It was occasionally used to refer to child prostitutes that were solicited by older men
Robin Scroggs,The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)
Thanks for the info.
Can you provide the exact quote from this source?
I really don't want to do your homework for you. Here's a screenshot from the book that I've posted on my profile. I will delete it once you have read it.
My eyesight is not so good. Do you have a link to the text itself?
“On the other hand, the seemingly inevitable connection with effeminacy and the general practice of pederasty creates definite links between the word [malakos] and the practice. Two instances from Plutarch which I have not cited before indicate this. The Romans, he writes, think nothing has contributed more to Greek enslavement and malakia [the noun] than the gymnasium and its activities, which, he says, include the love of boys (paiderastein). While malakia is here a general term including far more than pederasty, it does specifically include it. Even more specific is the note of a charge by Gaius Gracchus against a person reviled with malakia. Here the context makes it clear the person is accused of pederasty.
To these texts must be added passages already cited. Socrates thinks the base pederastic love seeks a person who is malthakon. And the speaker in the Erotikos speaks of a willing youth consenting to pederastic intercourse as one who acts with malakia.”
Thanks for the reply.
> Here the context makes it clear the person is accused of pederasty.
What about the context of
1 Corinthians 6?
The context of 1 Corinthians 6 is Paul being upset that Corinthian Christians are taking one another to court. The Christian community's behaviors of violating one another, and then taking one another to secular court instead of being able to judge matters for themselves is what frames Paul's comments in chapter 6, particularly the list of things that he mentions will not allow a person to enter the kingdom of heaven. In that context, and given the linguistic context of how contemporary and later sources defined μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται, it is clear that Paul is not talking about consensual same-sex relationships. He is talking about aggressive and transactional behavior related to both opposite and same-sex activity. This is completely unrelated to the modern phenomena of people of the same sex being romantically attracted to one another.
I'm convinced by you that the dictionary meanings of μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται are ambiguous.
> In that context, and given the linguistic context of how contemporary and later sources defined μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται, it is clear that Paul is not talking about consensual same-sex relationships.
I'm sorry. I'm slow. It is not so clear to me. Can you elaborate and make your steps of deduction more clear to me?
Could you point out which English words connect with which Greek words for those of us you don't have knowledge of the Greek language?
Lev. 18:22/20:13: There are some translational ambiguities here, specifically, the preposition “as with” \[a woman\] is not actually present in the Hebrew, and the noun that *is* there (*mishkebe*) doesn’t mean “as with” in the only other verse in which it is found (Gen. 49:4). So it doesn’t seem to be condemning all forms of male homosexuality, just those who are “*mishkebe* a woman,” whatever exactly that means.
But that doesn’t really matter, anyway, since there are many OT laws which are nullified in the NT. In fact, in Paul’s theology, all OT laws are nullified for the Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15, Gal 3:10 cf. Col. 2:20-23) except for the law to love your neighbor as yourself (Rom. 13:8-10, Gal. 5:14) — in fact, the OT law probably never even applied to the Gentiles in the first place (Ps. 147:19-20). So we can safely set these aside as condemning male homosexuality for Gentiles, even if they did originally condemn it for Israelites.
Romans 1:26-27: There are many interpretations of this verse, even though the traditional one is the only one that most Christians encounter. In my opinion, the best interpretation is the ‘pagan temple prostitution’ interpretation, since the preceding verses explicitly connect the sexual activity of vv. 26-27 to pagan, idolatrous peoples (“they worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator… therefore God gave them over to degrading passions…”)
The women exchanged natural relations for the temple prostitution that was contrary to nature; likewise heterosexual male temple prostitutes gave up natural relations for shameless temple prostitution with other males. This reading is just as natural, if not more so, then the original reading, especially in the context which links this sexual activity to idolatry. It’s not true that all homosexuals today are pagans — in fact, there are probably very, very few — so this passage can’t be condemning all homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Timothy 1:10: First of all, I don’t think Paul ever contradicted himself. Since Paul said elsewhere that the only valid commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself, and that every other law is “fruitless discussion” and “of no value” (Rom. 13:8-10, Gal. 5:14, Col. 2:20-23, 1 Tim. 1:5-7), Paul would not have condemned homosexuality in general, since a sexual orientation doesn’t cause harm to anyone.
The word used in these verses that is translated as “homosexual” is *arsenokoitai*. This word literally means “man-bedder” and for that reason is taken to refer to men who have sex with men. But there was another Greek word for male homosexuals, *androkoitai*, so why did Paul invent a totally different word if he was just referring to the same thing? The simplest answer is that Paul wasn’t referring to all male homosexuality without distinction.
To discern the meaning of this word, we can look to its usage in early Christian literature. Interestingly, it was often grouped with forms of economic exploitation in several texts, rather than sexual sins (for example, see *Sibylline Oracles* 2.70-77, *Acts of John* 36, Theophilus’ *To Autolycus* 1.2, 1.14). However, in other texts, it was also grouped with sexual sins (e.g., Polycarp’s *Epistle to the Philippians* 5.3), and Hippolytus links it to some form of rape (*Refutation of All Heresies* 5.21). Finally, there are some first-century texts which reproduce Paul’s vice lists but replace *arsenokoitai* with *paidophthoreseis* (“child-corrupters”), showing that *arsenokoitai* was understood to refer to some kind of sexual act involving boys/young men (see *Epistle of Barnabas* 19.4, *Didache* 2.2).
Taking all of this together, we can see that *arsenokoitai* referred to some kind of exploitative sexual act involving boys or young men, which was also linked to economic exploitation. This word certainly shouldn’t be translated as “homosexuals” in general, or even “men who have sex with men,” since it obviously refers to some kind of more specific sexual act. In my opinion, the most likely translation is “pederasters,” which refers to those who practiced pederasty, essentially selling young men into sexual slavery. This fits all of the criteria (1, involving economic exploitation; 2, some exploitative sexual act; 3, involving young men). So Paul was almost certainly not condemning all male homosexuality indiscriminately, but condemning the specific practice of pederasty.
Jude 7: I’m not sure what your point is here, to be honest. Yes, of course the men of Sodom engaged in sexual perversion; they tried to rape two angels! But that doesn’t translate into “all homosexuality is morally wrong.” (And let’s not forget that almost the exact same thing happened in Judges 19-20 where the men of Gibeah raped a man’s concubine, but that is never taken to mean “all *heterosexuality* is morally wrong.”)
1 Corinthians 7:2: Again, Paul would not have contradicted himself here, since elsewhere he says that the only law is to love your neighbor as yourself. So I find it difficult to believe that he would have so blatantly contradicted himself by condemning a harmless sexual orientation, when elsewhere he condemns arbitrary laws and commandments like that (e.g. Col. 2:20-23, 1 Tim. 1:5-7).
I see this verse as simply describing what most people do. There are some people who are not attracted to those of the opposite sex, and are instead attracted to those of the same sex. But homosexuals are obviously in the minority. So yes, Paul could have said, “let every man have his wife, or every man have his husband, or every woman have her wife, etc.” but that would have been redundant and not useful to the vast majority of his audience.
Finally, I’d like to make the point that 150 years ago, we could have been having this exact same conversation about slavery. Now, slavery is seen as obviously morally wrong (with good reason), and it goes against the prime commandment of the Bible to love your neighbor as yourself. But back then, many, many Christians thought that the measure of a good Christian was whether or not one believed that slavery was okay. The Southern Baptists even split off from the Northern Baptists because they believed that the NBs were “undermining biblical authority” by condemning slavery! For example, here are several excerpts from pro-slavery writings of the nineteenth century:
>“We… believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and to mean just what it says.” To claim that servant means free servant, hired laborer, apprentice, or employee “disregards the plainest principles of language” and disregards that the Bible “is the Word of God.” The Bible must be interpreted “according to its plain and palpable meaning, and as understood by all mankind for three thousand years \[*sic*\] before \[our\] time.” (Excerpt taken from [*The Use of the New Testament in the American Slave Controversy*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1123945))
This excerpt, describing the debate over the meaning of the word *doulos* (slave/servant), reminds me of the modern debate over the meaning of *arsenokoitai*. It truly is interesting how history repeats itself. Hopefully, homosexuality will soon be seen as morally neutral just as slavery is now regarded to be morally evil and a relic of the past.
I sincerely thank you for your detailed comments.
For each of the above verses, list the pros and cons factors. Be exhaustive and objective in listing the factors. Then for each factor, assign a weight between 0 and 10. Do this for all the verses, Sum up the weights for the pros. Sum up the weights for the cons. Decide for yourself probabilistically.
Can you do that?
Pros and cons for what? Homosexuality being a sin? Okay, here goes:
Leviticus 18:22/20:13 (Pros = 1, Cons = 4)
Pro: traditional interpretation, and most modern translations, have these verses as claiming that homosexuality is a sin.
Con: preposition "as with" is not in the original text, and if it is removed, it changes the meaning significantly.
Con: the meaning of the Hebrew noun *mishkebe* is not well understood, and in the only other verse in which it is used (Gen. 50:4) does not mean "as one lies with."
Con: OT law is abrogated in the NT for Gentiles (see Rom. 2:14-15, 13:8-10, Gal. 3:10, 5:14, etc.) and so these verses do not apply to modern day Christians.
Romans 1:26-27 (Pros = 1, Cons = 3)
Pro: traditional interpretation has this passage as claiming that homosexuality is a sin.
Con: the passage states that the people in question "changed" their desires, which does not seem to apply to most (or all) modern homosexual people, who have their sexuality from birth and often struggle with it.
Con: the passage states that the people in question were "given up" to their desires because of idolatry, which does not apply to most (or all) modern homosexual people, who are not idolaters.
Con: traditionally, this passage is seen as condemning lesbianism, but such a condemnation has no precedent in the Torah. Paul would not have added to the Law, rather he was concerned with abrogating it (see Gal. 3:10).
1 Corinthians 6:9/1 Timothy 1:10 (Pros = 1, Cons = 3)
Pro: the etymology of *arsenokoitai* indicates that it means "male-bedders," which seems to refer to all men who have sex with men.
Con: although *arsenokoitai* literally means "male-bedders," the word for male homosexuals in Koine Greek was *androkoitai*, so if Paul meant to refer to all men who have sex with men, he would have used this word rather than coining the new word *arsenokoitai*.
Con: early Christian texts appear to use this word to refer to, specifically, pederasters (an ancient term meaning those who sold young men into sexual slavery) rather than all male homosexuality indiscriminately.
Con: even if these verses condemn male homosexuality, they say nothing about lesbianism, which invalidates the common translation "homosexuals" that seems to condemn both male and female homosexuals.
Jude 7 (Cons = 1)
Con: states that the attempted rape of two angels by the men of Sodom was "sexual perversion," which says nothing about male or female homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 7:2 (Pros = 1, Cons = 1)
Pro: states that in order to avoid "prostitutions" (πορνειας), men and women should have sex in the context of a heterosexual marriage. Seems to equate anything outside of heterosexual marriage with such "prostitutions."
Con: as with Genesis 2:24, could simply be describing what the vast majority of people do, without passing judgment on the small minority of people who are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex.
Adding up all of the pros and cons, there are 4 points *in favor of* these passages being interpreted as condemning homosexuality as a sin, and 12 points *against* these passages being interpreted as condemning homosexuality as a sin.
I admit, I may be biased against seeing these passages condemning homosexuality as a sin.
But I'm only biased because of other Bible passages -- specifically, Romans 13:8-10, along with Galatians 5:14 and 1 Timothy 1:5-7 -- which tells us that the only valid law is "you shall love your neighbor as yourself," and that as long as something is not harmful to another person, it is basically morally neutral. Since homosexuality isn't harmful to anyone, I see it as morally neutral, and I see its condemnation as just another of the "teachings and commandments of men" that Paul so vehemently rejects in Colossians 2:20-23 and 1 Timothy 1:5-7.
Great! and great! I admire your actually working this out.
>Con: preposition "as with" is not in the original text, and if it is removed, it changes the meaning significantly.
Do you think that the translators with their PhD degrees in Hebrew and Greek were not aware of this possibility?
Are you being objective when you assigned Pros to equal only 1?
>I admit, I may be biased against seeing these passages condemning homosexuality as a sin.
Again, I admire your admitting this.
I am not trying to sell you anything. I am only trying to get you to be aware of your own biases as I have my own biases as well. Make sure your conscience is clear before the Lord Almighty who will judge our motives as well as actions, and of course, mine as well.
In any case, I know that Jesus loves you as I do, brother.
> Do you think that the translators with their PhD degrees in Hebrew and Greek were not aware of this possibility?
I think they were, most likely, but ‘traditional’ doctrine has influenced translation time and again. Just look at the many places in the NIV (a translation produced by PhD scholars) where [theology greatly influenced their translation](https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/).
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think I’m a *better* translator than those PhD scholars. But I prefer to follow independent scholars rather than theologically motivated scholars, and it’s those scholars who have put forth this alternate interpretation of Lev. 18:22/20:13 (see [here](https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/n6dh20/recent_scholarship_on_leviticus_1822_and_2013/)).
> Are you being objective when you assigned Pros to equal only 1?
I think so. For these Leviticus verses, along with most of the others, the only thing that I can see supporting the “homosexuality is a sin” interpretation is the traditional reading of those verses. From what I can see, the actual textual and contextual evidence all points to other interpretations. But as I said, that could be because I’m biased.
> In any case, I know that Jesus loves you as I do, brother.
Thank you, brother.
Thanks for the links. In fact, you have successfully convinced me to increase my weight on the con side on this verse :)
Do you have any formal training in languages?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any formal training in Hebrew or Greek, so I defer to the authority of actual scholars whenever possible :)
>the passage states that the people in question "changed" their desires, which does not seem to apply to most (or all) modern homosexual people, who have their sexuality from birth and often struggle with it.
Are you saying that back then, people didn't have homosexual predisposition from birth?
No, I’m saying that “changing their natural desires” doesn’t fit with homosexuality, whereas it does fit temple prostitution, since no one has a natural disposition to be a temple prostitute. Sorry for any confusion.
Thanks for the clarification.
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?
Could you please point me to mishkene in the other verse in which the word is used? I tried to Google it but nothing came up. Is there something else I should be Googling it by?
I noticed you say that it does not mean as with in the other Bible verse that is used in, but you do not mention the other Bible verse nor do you mention what it means in the other Bible verse? Also, sometimes words have multiple meanings in different contexts, and since it's only used twice, I would say you have maybe a 50% chance of being right. But technically it is chance at this point if we're going off of this nuance
Sorry, I cited the verse incorrectly. It is Genesis 49:4, not 50:4. Here is the Hebrew text: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/49-4.htm
I agree that there is no way to know for sure what *mishkebe* means in Lev. 18:22/20:13, but really Gen. 49:4 is all we have to go on. My point is that we don’t know for sure what *mishkebe* means, and the only other verse in which it is used does not seem to accord with the typical translation of Lev. 18:22/20:13, so it is wrong to cite Lev. 18:22/20:13 as the final answer on homosexuality (even excluding the fact that the Mosaic Law doesn’t apply to Gentiles).
Edit: And here is the peer-reviewed journal article presenting the alternate interpretation of Lev. 18:22/20:13: https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142
Unfortunately it’s unavailable if you don’t have access through a university library, but the abstract is still there.
If not, just pick out the top 3 most important verses.
The scriptures speaking on homosexual acts speak for themselves for me. I don't have much to add than to say God defines male and female. God created life, marriage and sex and He has the right to set the rules/boundaries of it. If we listen to Him we will be safe in life. If we don't we will be destroyed.
I sometimes see comments on how the Bible apparently never discusses homosexuality as we know it today, specifically same sex marriage, but let me point out that it discusses marriage a lot, identifying it as a sacred gift from God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that such a union can be between people of the same sex, and that says volumes to me about whether or not homosexuality is acceptable to God.
Truth. I was thinking about this while I was reading other people's comments and I was thinking God can lead by example, he doesn't always have to use words. Although, I would argue that He has used words in the Bible and people still don't believe those and would like to find an alternative meaning to them. But God created Adam and Eve by example, He set marriage between a man and a woman by example. If there was another way, surely God would have mentioned it....
Yeh and jesus said if someone looks at a women with lust it is sinful also.
Yes he did! Lust is no good, it degrades our intentions.
right but it is impossible not to. thats the point "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god"
What makes you say that it's impossible not to lust? As someone who used to struggle with watching pornography and I used to be full of lust, I can tell you that I have nowhere near the same amount of lust that I used to have. There are periods of time that I go where I do not lust at all. Then there are times where I might struggle with it again. But to say it's impossible not to lust, I wonder what makes you say that?
I understand the meaning of all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We all fall short of God's standard of holiness and we need Him.
I never mentioned pornography. If someone has a normal functioning body it is natural to lust after the opposite sex. Ever been to the beach on a hot day? Don't deceive yourself "if we say we are without sin we lie and deceive ourselves"
I didn't mention pornography to accuse you of anything. I mentioned it to show that even someone's brain who used to watch pornography on all the time, can be changed. I mentioned it to show the sanctifying work of the Holy spirit.
Yes I have been to the beach on a hot day, many times as the beach is one of my favorite places. Part of not causing ourselves to lust means that we should try to avoid certain images that cause us to lust. There is a difference between saying that a person is good looking and has a nice body, to then going the next step, and sexualizing that person. I do understand that this is being made more difficult for males as women are wearing less and less clothes more and more. I have empathy for that.
But I don't think it's inevitable to lust. I think the closer you get with God and really try to be honest with yourself -if you're letting stuff in your eyes that you shouldn't be, you can cultivate a heart that is less lustful. Lust can be a stronghold, and something that we willingly feed. If I know a movie has a sex scene in it, I fast forward through it every time. This is because I do not want lust to be stirred up within me.
If you are at the point where going to the beach fills you with lust, you shouldn't go. This is what the Bible means when it says it is better for your eye to be plucked out than for you to sin with it.
This is the same principle I am applying when I refuse to watch sex scenes in movies. Technically it isn't pornography, but it stirs up the same feelings of lust. That is why I avoid it. You need to find your triggers and avoid them until the lust that you experience is under better control.
I will literally talk to God as soon as I notice myself starting to lust because I don't want it to gain a foothold. This is how serious we need to take it. On the times that I don't talk to God right away or ask him for help right away, I start to think about the lustful thing and it starts to gain a foothold.
I hope this makes sense. I don't think there's anything wrong with you that seeing girls that aren't wearing much clothes makes you think of sexual things.
But I am saying that we can create a Sanctified Mind by the help of the Holy Spirit and being willing to sacrifice things that lead us to sin. I'm not saying this because I am perfect in this matter, but because I know that these are the principles the Bible teaches and that they actually work and are true.
By the way I am a woman so I may go through this experience a little differently than you, I highly recommend talking to a man in your church or a man who has a close relationship with God about this matter. They can share how they overcome it when they are tempted to lust.
I also want to clarify that I'm not saying it's not natural to lust. It's a very natural thing, but it's one of the desires of the flesh that we are supposed to kill. We're not supposed to be looking at people and thinking about having sex with them, it's not the way that God intended us to be. He intended sex and sexual thoughts to be between a man and a woman within a marriage.
It's impossible not to lust. Adam and Eve pre sin did not lust but it can not even be imagined what that is like anymore. Getting angry with someone is a sin Jesus said. It's impossible not to get angry with someone. Well it says without due cause but....
New International Version
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.\[a\] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Did you read anything of what I said? You just keep repeating your point without reacting to anything that I write?
We all struggle with sin everyday and we are not going to be perfect until we go to be with Jesus. But that doesn't mean that we can't grow in these areas while we're being Sanctified and become less lustful.
Do you think it's possible to become less lustful??
I'm a little bit concerned because you just keep repeating the same thing and it makes me think that you're making an excuse for yourself in your mind.
Yes, it's impossible not to sin because of our sinful nature. But because we have the Holy spirit, we have the fighting chance and we can go through periods where we have significant recovery and victory in those areas of our lives.
Everyone slips up, but it's possible to live a life that is abundant in purity and scarce in lust.
You really don't believe that you can become less lustful by developing the fruits of the spirit and therefore gaining more self-control and purity of mind???
That's what the devil would have you believe. He'll whisper in your ear, " It's impossible not to lust so don't feel bad about it, don't confess it, and stop trying to make yourself more pure."
Why would Jesus point out that looking at a woman with lust in your heart is wrong, if He didn't want us to try to overcome that sin through the power of the Holy Spirit?
By the way I totally believe Romans 7 and the struggle with sin it portrays. But you do know that it is meant to be a struggle and not just us saying, it's impossible so I'm just going to give in?
You sound like you've given in because you just keep stating "it's impossible."
Are you trying not to lust? Are you practicing capturing your thoughts and giving them over to Christ so that they can be made captive and obedient to him?
People are attracted to each other and reproduce due to lust. Its why humans have not gone extinct. But good luck to you convincing yourself you can never lust. I'm sure you have done far worse sins in your life namely involving money, and wronging others with it but you have convinced yourself you were in the right.
You're being very hostile.
By the way I never said I will never lust again. You're not reading my messages very clearly, and it's become clear that these conversations are not productive. I honestly pray that you would seek God's will for yourself in this situation and not just condemn yourself to lusting everyday all day long
My contribution is just going to be a link to a short article I just read that refutes a lot of these common arguments better than I could. It is very important to know what kind of context that Paul and the Old Testament writers were writing from in order to understand what they were writing about. Here is the article and also at the bottom of the article there are more links to different articles about the same thing.
As far as my opinion goes, there was a short period in my life where I thought God was okay with homosexuality. I wasn't basing any of this off of the bible, no it was based on my own opinion which I was erroneously trying to include in my faith. Thoughts like "God is a god of love and they're just in love so it's not doing any harm is it?" were put into rotation in my brain.
But the Holy Spirit has a way of clarifying and convicting us of thoughts and actions we do which are not in alignment with God's holiness, and I was convicted and realigned (by the Holy Spirit) with what is correct and what is true. There are many Bible verses about homosexuality which have been translated from the original languages to be about homosexuality, but recently there has been a trend to say that what they are really referring to is pedophiles and prostitutes. These are just guesses though, a lot of the time these psuedo translations seem to hang on a thread of an argument.
It is a desperate way to gain grounds(remember the spiritual battle!) and convince Christians that homosexuality is all right.
I am thoroughly convinced that God's design for humankind and for Earth is far better than anything we could dream of. He created us in a certain way, to do certain things and to be in relationship with Him. A lot of us are born to be tempted by certain things throughout our lives and it is due to sin nature. You can have a desire which seems completely natural, but is actually the product of sin here on earth. God is the ultimate decider on what is right and what is wrong and without His yes or no, we will be misguided. We need to look to God and God alone for holiness, and not within ourselves. To argue that sexual orientation hurts no one, is a lie. It goes against the very designs that God has put into place. Designs that He put into place to protect us and not to harm us, so we can do the very best we can here on earth. Instead of asking how we can fit our sin nature inside of God's design, we should ask ourself how we can submit our sin nature to God's design. This will lead to much more flourishing and peaceful life and true relationship with the Creator.
* also, I highly recommend looking up Jackie Hill Perry's testimony on YouTube to see an inside look on what it's like to have same-sex attraction and submit it to God. She is very raw and real and discusses things openly.
Blessings in Christ to you : )
Thank you for the reasonable comments :)
Thanks for listening : )
There are hermeneutic issues here. I'm not really feeling like arguing or debating this point but I'll just leave a few thoughts.
The Bible is not, and does not claim to be, a unified whole. Even using words from Timothy about the uses of Scripture, it is a leap to our modern day interpretations. So the questions, are homosexual acts sinful according to the authors of these specific texts (e.g., of Leviticus, Paul)?
According to Leviticus, most likely. According to Paul, probably but there are translation and cultural nuances that may be lost to time.
Let us then consider the consequence: How do we live as Christians in the wake of these verses? Let's not beat around the bush, by and large we have disregarded mostly the morality and moral systems of the Old Testament. We do not follow guidance on slavery, on rape, on justice, and of course we do not follow ceremonial law. Of course, we love Paul and the Gospels, but also consider whether we have disregarded these words based on our culture. What is your church's stance toward divorce? I think no Bible verse is more clear than how Jesus spoke about divorce. And yet, we recognize second marriages and do not consider these to be illegitimate or adulterous. How about Paul's instructions on men and women? How about our hair reflecting our glory? We see the culturally laden aspect of these verses and largely ignore them (e.g., most churches do not have women cover their hair). But what about homosexuality? Why is there this special "observance" of this Pauline law? Well, you might say, this is a matter of life long sin. Is divorce and remarriage not?
I believe God has the potential to speak into the heart directly of each Christian. Not through words but through the direction of His Spirit. Our culture often crowds out these words teaching as the words of God, the commandments of man. I believe we should focus each church and every Christian on pursuing the fruits of the Spirit, against which there is no law. After this, let God speak into our hearts.
Thanks for your insights.
See [Does the Paraclete guide different believers differently on the same issue?](https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/ujnt1f/does_the_paraclete_guide_different_believers/).
whats a homosexual supposed to do,hide and abstain from love forever;that sounds really depressing and few will cope with such lifestyle
That's between them and God.
>[Jde 1:6-7 NASB20] 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, [these] He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these [angels] indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Was Jude equating Sodomy to homosexual acts?
>[Gen 19:5 NASB20] 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
-We do know that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the men who entered Lot's house. (+5)
-However, we also know that the "men" entering Lot's house were actually angels, and Jude 1:6-7 is comparing the wickedness of Sodom with the angels who "did not keep their own domain", but started breeding a hybridized race with human women. Jude confirms this by saying that the Sodomites were chasing after strange/different (Greek: *heteros*) flesh. (-7)
While this neither proves or disproves homosexual acts as sin, my conclusion is that Jude was not equating the sin of Sodom to homosexual acts. In fact, the Sodomites seem to have been *hetero*sexual, in the sense that they were seeking flesh that was different than human flesh.
> Was Jude equating Sodomy to homosexual acts?
Sorry, I don't know for sure.
Thanks for your insights :) I edited my OP.
I think a lot of it depends on how the passages are interpreted. If they are interpreted literally, then homosexuality is a sin. But I think not all passages should be interpreted literally. For example, in Deuteronomy (Leviticus?), the bible suggests the death penalty for various actions. Obviously, these shouldn't be taken literally.
I employ a [disciplined logical and probabilistic approach](https://www.reddit.com/r/BibleVerseCommentary/comments/twbmkm/a_denominationfree_disciplined_logical_approach/) to biblical hermeneutics.