What exactly does the Bible say about homosexuality?

[beansmum]

And why do some Christians make such a big deal out of it when Jesus didn't mention it at all?

It is kind of on my mind at the moment because of a comment the woman preaching on Sunday made about 'truth not tolerance', standing up for the 'truth' and not just trying to 'hug everyone and tell them they are ok'.

seeker - the NT passages about homosexuality are the first chapter of Romans and quite a few little bits in the epistles about 'homosexuals' among lists of sinful things like lying and so on.

seeker - if the only stuff on homosexuality was in Leviticus, I think the argument would be weaker. (Although I think the laws on sexual practices are probably for now too.) It's the NT stuff - especially Romans 1 - that I find hard.

Knowing which law is which - this is the bit that I agree is woolly. I basically go with the consensus of christian though - like I say, I haven't worked this through for myself.

madamez - you are welcome to come and bash us. But the rest of us are actually having quite a thoughtful discussion...

But there isn't a consensus of Christian thought, is there?

And Romans is St Paul - is that Divine Revelation?

Madamez - "Tread softly, for you tread on my dreams"

YOu can find totally opposing arguments within the same book, depending on context and your own opinion. You can also find people who have studied any mythological text, come up with their own version of it and managed to be persuasive or aggressive enough to sell that interpretation to other people. Yes there is some anti-gay stuff in the Bible, but there's also a fair bit of homoerotic bonding and sitting on each other's knees, so I think a case could be made for a pro-gay interpretation of chunks of it as well, if you wanted to.
My point is there is no excuse for bigotry based on mythology that can be interpreted in a variety of ways to suit the interpreter. If you're a bigot, own your bigotry, don't blame it on your imaginary friends.

madamez the fact that religion has been used for that (and sometimes still is) does not affect the core beliefs that some of us have. I know you don't get it, and I don't expect you to. But could you please try to understand that some of us sincreley and with a lot of thought, do believe in the existence of God.

If you look, most of us on this thread are saying that we have a problem with bigotry, and are explaining why we think the bigots are wrong.

seeker - there pretty much is a consensus on which parts of OT law still apply. Not completely - Seventh Day Adventists would say it all still applies, for example. But it's not really a hot topic that you find people arguing over.

I believe that that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". I believe that Jesus appointed his apostles to spread the Good News, and sent the Holy Spirit to enable them to accurately transmit it. I believe that Paul was intending to write scripture, and that Peter, chief of the apostles, considered Paul's writing as scripture (2 Peter 3:16). So yes, I believe that Romans is divine revelation

madamez - your homoerotic bonding is my celebration of deep and sincere same-sex friendships. There's a complete lack of any references to sex. So it really is an argument from silence to use these passages as arguments for either the prosecution or the defence.

Cornflakegirl: well that;s exactly my point about differing interpretations of a much translated and adapted text.

Yeah, that's helpful, madamez, I'm sitting here trying to excuse my bigotry. I'm reading most of the Christians who are conflicted about this are coming from a position of not being bigotted and really not being happy about the parts of their religious texts that appear to claim that God is.

We're discussing the ways you deal with that - notably modified views of what the religious texts actually are.

I appreciate that your position is 'This is all shit', and I like the simplicity of that one, but I'm actually trying to do this in a positive way and not just rip my entire existence to shreds in the process.

Well, actually not much-translated. Current translations of the Old Testament eg the NIV are taken directly from the Masoretic Hebrew text. And there is good textual evidence that this has survived well over the millenia. So not really adapted either.

im not christian and dont believe in organised religion as such because it is my belief that it causes nothing but war. most wars fought in this world today are over religous beliefs!!!

one of my closest friends is a devout christian and though not homophobic herself is adamant that the bible teaches that it is wrong, she also had no qualms in telling me that my mum would go to hell as she practises witch craft. she also told another friend of ours if she let my mum read her tarot cards she would go to hell too!!

my experience of the bible when i did go to church is that god is all loving and all forgiving. i cannot see why this love and forgiveness would not extend to gays and lesbians. also did god not create mankind and all thier needs? yes i am aware he gave us temptation and the choice of freewill to test us etc. but since we now that being gay is not a choice people make deliberately but is just the way that they are. it seems that only a cruel god would create people to lust after someone they could not have through fear of going to hell.

especially since a) a god who would do such a thing is not a loving god
and b) it is wrong to have sexual relations outside of marriage and with a person whom you do not love. gay men do not love women!! but then man is made to desire companionship and according to the bible is not meant to live alone!

it all seems very contradictory to me.

I think you'll find that the Christians on here are mainly saying about the same. Apart from the wars bit, which we've gone over several times recently and I'd rather not go down again.

Some Christians, often very outspoken ones, do use their faith to justify bigotry, or have been brainwashed by those who do, but most of us just don't think that way.

micci25 - God created a perfect world. Humans sins, and this resulted in a judgment that warped the essential nature of creation, and of humans and our relationship with each other.

Whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, your argument that "how we are is how we are supposed to be" leads inevitably to complete acceptance of a lot of things I don't want to accept. Some people are "naturally" very selfish. Some people "naturally" get pleasure from hurting others. Some people "naturally" find children sexually attractive. So I don't think that our natural instincts are a good basis for morality. As a great thinker once said "Some people love their neighbours, others eat theirs. Do you have a preference?"

I also don't think that "not living along" necessarily equals being married / in a sexual relationship. Jesus wasn't married, but he was no less a complete person for that.

(I'm not intending to trivialise the pain of homosexual christians who don't enjoy the exclusive relationship they long for because they don't believe it's God's will for them. Or of unmarried, celibate heterosexual christians who want to marry, but believe that God wants them to marry another christian, and find it hard to meet someone compatible within that reduced pool.)

But, in a way, I also agree with you. I don't understand why God hasn't given gay people a way to have loving sexual relationships without sinning.

We have been discussing the differences between old and new testaments in our house group recently and something that made sense to me was that I am a Christian and therefore follow the teachings of Christ.
The old testament is still important both as a background history and views of individuals trying to explain what God meant to them, but for me it is the new testament, particularly the Gospels that outline my ideals for living.
In fact Jesus sometimes explains that some laws in the OT were very basic, not necessarily how Christians should live.
(e.g. 'eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth law in OT was written because people were killing in retaliation to a lesser injury. The law made it illegal to do anything worse than had been done to you. In the NT, when Jesus says we should actually turn the other cheek, this is because the old law is just the legal minimum, not the ideal way.)

I think if you're feeling particularly Old Testament and fire and brimstone, you can make a case for the Bible being "against" homosexuality. But then if you want to, you can also make a case for it being against eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed cloth. See the infamous Dr Laura Letter for more.

And Jesus said nothing about it, as far as I know.

Or you could try just making up your own mind and not letting yourself be told what to do by an ancient book written by several dozen different people.

Nah, that would be silly.

Hi seeker and everyone else - it's good to see a serious, balanced discussion here, with people who actually want to try and understand others points of view - very refreshing (well, most of you are anyway!).

Seeker - I wrote this post (below the dotted line) the other day on another thread. I don't have time to write another right now, but thought this might halp address some of your questions about the OT laws regarding sacrifices, cooking and eating etc.

Regarding food see Romans 14:20.

Can I also reiterate a point made earlier in the thread (can't remember who by, sorry).

It is certainly wrong for Christians, or a particular church, to 'make a big deal' out of homosexuality. The Bible makes it clear that it is our rejection of God that is sin, and that all sins, however 'small' or 'large' are therefore equal in God's eyes. So whether you are gay or not, if you reject Jesus as saviour, you are not at peace with God. Homosexuality is not the issue - rejection of God (manifest in a thousand different ways) is.

In the same way that it would be wrong for a Christian to refuse someone who cheats on their tax return entry into their church, it is wrong for Christians to refuse homosexuals into their churches - or to attack or harass homosexual people.

Generally speaking, however, this is not what is happening (and I make no excuses for anyone who claims to be a Christians and does harass homosexuals). The church's hand has been forced because some people wish the church to openly condone homosexual sex (by consecrating gay bishops for example), which the Bible says is wrong.

I have no personal vendetta or issue with gays whatsoever, and am not homophobic. I do belive the Bible, which says homosexual sex is wrong in God's eyes. The Bible also says that it is wrong to lie, steal, misrepresent others, gossip...I could go on. I lie, steal, gossip and misrepresent others. I do not stand in judgement over other sinners, as I am one myself! I do not, however wish for The Church to condone my sins as right.

I hope that makes sense and helps you understand where Bible believing Christians are coming from.

----

It is simply not true that an accurate following of the Bible would nessesitate killing of homosexuals (as in the oft quoted Leviticus passage).

The Bible, as with any ancient text, needs to be read alongside other texts of the time, in the context of the culture of the time. You need to read the whole text. You need to know who it was writen by, who it was writen to, and for what purpose. What else was going on at the time it was writen? Who was the King? What wars were in progress? What were the laws and traditions of the time etc etc.

Historians, Christian and otherwise, always read texts in this way and interpret them acordingly. To quote a random verse is not even remotely helpful if you genuinely want to understand and interpret the Bible.

Old Testament Law (Including Leviticus) did legislate death as a punishment for some sins. Braodly speaking, these were laws which gave the Israelites an understanding of God's standards and His nature, and set Israel apart from the other nations in the region. Israel was to follow God's laws to the letter in order to demonstrate their alliegence to their God and show their faith in Him. This was how they would be saved.

The New Testament is to be read 'differently'. This is a right, historical reading of the text, not a clever way for Christians to find loopholes. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 15: 17). So God's standards for holiness in Old T law were fulfiled by Jesus' perfection in the NewT.

God's standards haven't changed (Jesus goes on to say "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.), but the Old T system of sacrifices and punishments has changed in the light of Jesus' punishment on the cross being the Ultimate, Once For All Sacrifice.

So whilst the spirit of Old T law remains (and hence, the things clearly prohibited by the law - homosexuality being one of those things - remain contrary to God's law), New Testament Christians are not required by the Bible to exact punishment on homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. Rather, Jesus clearly advocates by his teaching and actions that all people can turn to him and be reconciled with God, and that likewise His followers should show love and compassion to all people.

This does not mean Christians must approve of or condone all behaviour, but Christians are certainly wrong to be cruel, violent or hateful to any person of any creed, race, sexual orientation, colour, ability etc.

It is possible to disagree that the Bible is true, but still understand what causes Christians to state that homosexuality is wrong without having to also kill homosexuals as the logical conclusion of their faith. This is not hypocrisy and incnsistency within the Christian Faith, but rather a logical and legitimate reading of the Bible.

I'm not sure if its worth posting this really. So often its allowable to 'Christian Bash', and it all seems a bit pointless to try and help people understand the viewpoint of Christians when they so clearly do not wish to. Hopefully this might allow you to get on with your debate without the need to keep trotting out the "If Christians were anything but hyprcrits they would need to kill all gay people".

-------

Hi Jackstini - Haven't 'seen' you for ages and ages...we met once in RL didn't we? I didn't know you were a Christian

I can see what you are saying below, but not sure I quite agree (depends where you are going with it...)

As I just said in my epic below:

The New Testament is to be read 'differently'. This is a right, historical reading of the text, not a clever way for Christians to find loopholes. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 15: 17). So God's standards for holiness in Old T law were fulfiled by Jesus' perfection in the NewT.

God's standards haven't changed (Jesus goes on to say "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.), but the Old T system of sacrifices and punishments has changed in the light of Jesus' punishment on the cross being the Ultimate, Once For All Sacrifice.

The OT is realy important...Jesus thought so!

Yeah, but Astrophe, there's the rub - gossip, lying, stealing, adultery etc. clearly hurt other people. There's an obvious and logical reason why God would proscribe those things.

Falling in love with someone of the same gender? Who the heck does that hurt?

Astrophe - fab post!

But I don't think it's just the sacrifices and punishment that have changed. The food laws have changed, circumcision has changed - the early church in the nt had to gradually work out how much gentile converts had to judaise themselves... And I think it is sometimes difficult for non-christians, and for christians, so see why we follow some bits of OT teaching and not others.

Can I just barge in and quote God Jed Bartlett (purely for West Wing fans):

JACOBS: I don?t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!

JACOBS: 18:22.

BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I wanted to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She?s a Georgetown Sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?

Here?s one that?s really important, because we?ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.