Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Testament for homosexuality is literally "a sodomite". Trying to define what the term "sodomite" means. (A term that has unchanged in 5000 years, even today- "sodomy")

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."

Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Seriously on that last sentence? I've yet to see a Bible that uses the phrase "homosexual". Pretty recent word IMO, certainly not in any Bible I've read.--Fingermouse 23:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's 1 Cor 6:9. NET and WEB use homosexual. Rotherham uses Sodomite. It seems to be missing from my version of the Vulgate. All other versions I have use some construction of "men who abuse themselves with men." Shouldn't this be a Discussion or Debate?--All Fish Welcome 02:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

--NET and WEB are new versions of the bible which have undergone many translations and transformations. If you look at the King James Bible - accepted all over the world as the most accurate, the "Authorised Version" - you'll see it's not about homosexuality at all. It says "nor abusers of themselves with mankind". So don't accept the word of people who just decide for themselves that's what an ambiguous verse is about, twisting words until they are unrecognisable like so many preachers do. And they do. Proof of that is in the existence of countless different kinds of Christianity.

Whats with that one that calls fornicators sinners? I still fail to understand why sex in marriage is ok and sex out of it isn't. Adultery is wrong yes, but just fornicating? Bolly Ottihw 18:09, 22 April 2007

Fornication covers far more than just sex outside marriage. My KJV dictionary describes it as "sexual immorality," which, as you can imagine, covers a wide array of behaviors, many of which hadn't even been invented when the Bible was compiled. (Likewise, certain behaviors considered immoral then may be moral today; but let's not go there.)
For the sake of argument, let's accept sex outside of marriage = fornication. Imagine a child born out of wedlock in an ancient, tribe-based society. Imagine trying to determine the rights and obligations of all parties involved, to include care of the child, inheritance, legal lineage, etc. Back then, it was much easier just to restrict who is having sex with whom. Today, we have the benefits of contraception, paternity testing, etc., so it's not as big a deal. But there is always a counterexample to make us think that maybe the ancients were on to something (see: DannieLynn Stern/Birkhead/Whoever).--All Fish Welcome 04:34, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the Bible says plenty against homosexual sex out of the context of a relationship, but the only comment it makes about a loving homosexual relationship is between David and Jonathan, which is even said to be better than that of a man and a woman: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, King James). They formalised the relationship: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." (1 Samuel 18:3-4, King James). I thought with so many negative quotes from the Bible on this page, it might be refreshing to have a positive loving one :-) Proberts84 18:01, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Wrong David and Jonathan were not homosexual. Take this as a block warning. --CPAdmin1 18:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, the quotes check out (though they may be out of context). We don't block for ideological reasons, according to your awesome proposed block policy, CPA1. --Hojimachongtalk 18:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
OK, no block warning. --CPAdmin1 18:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry - didn't realise I was near a nerve. I'll back up slightly. I will say though that the view that they were homosexual seems to me no less conservative than that they were not - it has been believed by many for centuries (e.g. "indeed I do remember to have heard that one man so loved another. Jonathan cherished David, Achilles loved Patroclus", Life of Edward II, 1326 AD).
Dont worry, you will be had, sooner or later I am sure. I mean, check out the link related to Schlafly on wikipedia and provide them here and you will see how quickly you will be BLOCKED. Oh yes, that most Reverend Haggard also, not a peep about that man here nor will we ever see any mention. Ah yes, Our Vice President and how angry he got when CNN Wolf Blitzer started down the road about his daughter. So, watch out, big brother IS watching and WILL stop you when they find anything they deem objectionable (Oh yea, the reasons will not be what you think they are or what they state
I don't know whether we can say categorically that they were not homosexual, but I do admit there is a grey area. The key word seems to me to be 'ahabah', which is the Hebrew word in the text for the love that they shared. It is the same word as between Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:20). It also features between a man and a woman in Pro 5:19 and 2Sa 13:15. It is also used often to describe God's love for his people.
The argument that their relationship could be political does not to me seem very credible as all of their covenants were made in private. Although David was married to many women, the Bible never states that he loved them, only that one of them loved him. In fact, when he learns of Jonathan's death, he states that his love for him was greater than that of women (as quoted above). What is the argument that they categorically were not homosexual? Proberts84 17:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
P.S. the quotes were only out of context as it would be a little counterproductive for me to paste the entire passages here. I gave references so that they could be read in context which, I believe, supports my point.

yeah your totally out of would depend on your definition of love..does that ALWAYS include sex? IF you Love God even more then a women, does that mean you had sex with God? does "1 Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us. " mean God had sex with us? That verse you so need to be homosexual is talking about a brotherly love greater then love between a husband and a wife.--Wally 13:32, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Please, guys, get over it! Read another book. The bible is - er - out of date and was written by a bunch of chaps who were not exactly up-to-the-minute. Anyone who says being gay is wrong is immoral. Anyone who says that sex is wrong is immoral. We must find other codes to live by, beyond those outlined in the bible, which is a book completely irrelevant apart from some cultural and literary interest. The bible is wrong. It is not the word of god. God does not exist, except in the minds of the emotionally depleted and the intellectually feeble. Is this clear?

much love and best wishes

chris larner

The Church discourages it and in some cases it is condemned and forbidden. Like marriage = A man + a woman only. --Dark1Kristen 23:54, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe Christian teaching is that all homosexuals should be put to death. (LEV 20:13) ----Charlesincharge --Charlesincharge 01:10, 25 July 2007 (EDT) (Sorry, forgot to sign)

You may wish it were so Charles, but it does not make it true. Christianity is about mercy and recognizing that all have sinned and are in need of forgiveness. If you have a desire to argue the point, you may wish to log onto a jewish wiki or a jewish website and see their views as they do not believe in the New Testament message and give a prominence to the Torah that is often lacking in Christian circles. As I have been active in different debate forums and come across many "Charles" in my life, I already know that you have no desire to do so -- your barbs are aimed at Christianity specifically, not the originators of the scriptures. Learn together 01:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Allow me to rephrase... In the Bible, it states that homosexuals should be put to death: Leviticus 20:13 - "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

--Charlesincharge 03:42, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes it does, but let's be clear. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is the New Testament. In Paul's writings, in the New Testament, he let us know that under the law ALL are condemned. (The section of the Bible you are quoting from is the law.) General Christian theology is that first came grace, then came the law. We live under grace. The law is there to make you realize you can't fulfill it, and you need a savior. And, just in case you're thinking it, does that mean we are free to go out and sin? Paul brings that up too - no. We live for Christ, but just because we miss the mark doesn't mean we put people to death.
That's the Christian view. Now you've quoted from the section of the Bible that is most holy to Jews (some Jews believe that only the first 5 books of the Bible are the inerrant word of God, the rest is fallible), so really your concern is with Judaism. But that being said, ancient Jewish writings do not show this being enforced either. For a system of belief that most follows the literal punishment of the laws, you may wish to turn to Islam where some practices are still in effect today. Learn together 12:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

What exctly is wrong about a man loving a man ? Tieum512 07:12, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue being discussed is not a man's loving a man, but rather engaging in sexual relations with a man, or perhaps a man treating another man as a woman rather than a man. I'm not as much an expert on the Bible as I should be, unfortunately. Does lesbianism even play into this at all? Anmeris 14:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is very often used in such a context (as btwn humans to personally know) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 the, attempts to negate such injunctions rely upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), but which negation the rest of Scripture disallows. Another attempt is to make these injunctions only for purposes of distinction (team colors) btwn Israel and the pagan nations, yet the Bible treats them as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites.

Another attempt is to make them only applicable to the Levites, but which the context denies (Lev. 18:2; 19:2; 20:2).

Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, and moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.

Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. And the text goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as it typically is today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexual.

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, thus further affirming the general applicability of Levitical prohibitions (which do not use that term), rather than the opposite, as homosexual apologists wrest it to mean. These were also addressed to Israel as a whole, as part the mixture of religious, civil and moral “statutes and judgments” that began in chapter 12. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such

A final objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).

As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage (as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals - and also would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it out to be - then it would be unholy fornication), such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.

Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms), and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known for keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).

Regarding Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments, ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of Aaron upon his son. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.

Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him. David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it). Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.

As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend (mine) and (see Homosexuality) --Daniel1212 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)

It's Wrong, But...

Christianity says homosexuality is wrong. I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean Christians have to adopt an anti-gay agenda and enforce it upon non-Christians or people who are Christian but not as religious. I am Jewish, and my religion teaches that eating pork is wrong. On a side note the book of Leviticus even describes eating non-kosher meat and homosexuality using the same phrase - "it is an abomination", which should eliminate any debate regarding degrees of sins. But, while I would therefore not eat pork, and I would consider a religious Jew who ate it to have violated their religion, I would absolutely not consider any of you sinners if you eat bacon and sausage every day for breakfast. And for that matter, I wouldn't consider a less religious Jew a sinner if they did so. After all, I've seen many posts here fearing that radical Islam will come to America and enforce their views on us, so why is it ok when American Christians attempt to do the same? Gregkochuconn 16:34, 5 June 2011 (EDT)

What about the Bible?

Ok, so people have quoted scriptures, and the theme is "christianity". It is plain that a practicing sexually immoral person of ANY type will not inherit God's kingdom. The scriptures at 1Corinthians 6:9-11 show that VERY clearly. But note verse 11. It says "but that is what some of you WERE...". The point is that any person who practices sexual immorality is a sex offender in God's eyes, and this includes homosexuality. Yet if one STOPS their offending behaviour, or rather repents (recognises it as wrong and feels bad about it) and turns around (stops doing it) their sins can be blotted out, and they can stand in line to inherit the blessings of what our creator wants for us...but a sexually immoral person of any type who is unrepentant stands in their sins. (Acts 3:19) (Galatians 5:19-21)Exwikipediaperson 14:00, 6 August 2014 (EDT)