Busted Halo
googling god
The Busted Halo Question Box
Ask our spiritual experts virtually anything!
This is the place where you can ask all of those burning questions that you wouldn't dare ask in person. We will post questions here (using your byline only with permission); we guarantee an answer to everyone.

Have your own question? Then pitch it to us!

Caitlin Kennell Kim
Mary
Fr. Rick Malloy, SJ
General Questions
Fr. Tom Ryan, CSP
Ecumenical, Interfaith
Neela Kale
Culture, Moral Theology
Ann Naffziger, M.A., M.Div.
Bible
Mike Hayes
Swingman/Editor
 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Our readers asked:

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

Ann Naffziger Answers:

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)

If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.

In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
The Author : Ann Naffziger
Ann Naffziger is a scripture instructor and spiritual director in the San Francisco Bay area. She has has written articles on spirituality and theology for various national magazines and edited several books on the Hebrew Scriptures.
See more articles by (108).
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.
  • Riff 7

    So only the words of Jesus are valid scriptures ?

    Jesus said “you MUST be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven”
    Jesus said “not all who call me Lord shall by any means enter the Kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father”

    So for those who love to shrinkd the Bible to Jesus-only scriptures still need to be Born-Again Christians AND also not violate the “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not” laws of God.

    Nevertheless, for the ignorant, the scriptures of St Paul, St Peter and all the rest are just as valid and Holy Spirit inspired as the scriptures of Jesus.
    You probably need to get Born-Again to realize this.

    • Big0725

      Seeing the dogma is called “Christianity” and not “Peterism” or “Paulism” the words of your Christ are the most important in the Bible.

  • knowitall

    What the french toast are you talking about? Sorry John you are getting way ahead of yourself and judging at the speed of light you didn’t even had time to analyze my comment. Try again.

    • John Delmonte

      It looks like in your comment to Nynetguy that you are building a case for the false claims of the “Palestinian” Arabs of being on the land first.

      • knowitall

        I don’t think so. It actually looks like you are just judgemental.

  • nynetguy

    Jesus did not live in the land of Palestine if he did indeed live at all. Palestine was a region, not a nation.

    • knowitall

      What shall we tell the Roman historian Tacitus and the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny, that their outside-the-Bible, independent and non-christian accounts and writings about Jesus were wrong? Like are you freaking kidding me?

      • Chris ONeill

        Pliny the Younger (Governor of Bithynia) talks about Chrestians (once) – but I don’t remember him mentioning Jesus. Where does he do that?

      • knowitall

        Hahahaha… oh boy where to begin. Look I’ll give you a hint: “Christós.” Come back later with a better argument after you’d done your homework.

  • John Delmonte

    The only sin that Sodom and Gomorrah were noted for was homosexuality. Jesus said in Matt. 10:15, 11:23, 11:24; and in Luke 10:12, 17:29 that the COMING judgment would be more bearable for those two cities than for Chorazin and Bethsaida, because if the miracles that had been done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah they would have repented of the sins that they were known for and would have remained even to the days of Jesus’ time on earth.

    So “Yes!” Jesus did condemn homosexuality, it’s just that He condemned the others even more for their refusal to believe in Him.

    • knowitall

      Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” You sure?

      • John Delmonte

        Okay, so I was wrong about the “ONLY” sin part but you also left out part of verse 50; the abomination part.

        So because it is safe to assume that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which brought them down, was the sin of homosexuality because of the fact that that was the sin that those two cities have been known for throughout history even through to the time of Jesus and up to the present day.

        There are many wolves in sheeps clothing and any pastor, who tries to convince me that homosexuality is harmless and not detested by God is a wolf in sheeps clothing. We were warned that this would happen and this type of decadence was also prophesied for the end times. Such teachers will be punished MOST severely in eternity.

        My prayer for you is that you will repent so that you and I can spend an eternity together experiencing and worshipping God as He intended since before the creation of the world.

      • knowitall

        But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

        Lot was violating the custom of Sodom…by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, “that they might know them,” they meant no more than to “know” who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality, but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.

        There are over 8 forms/ways/definitions for the word “known” and the only one you can think of is sex? And so all the men including young and old and all the people from every quarter wanted to have homosexual sex?

      • John Delmonte

        I am sorry but what you have written is a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture. The only way you will be able to prove your point is if you were to go back in time in a time machine and bring one of those inhabitants to the present day and then interrogate him/her about the mores and customs of that time.

        I know about the present day customs of entertaining guests in the Middle East but customs are dynamic and subject to change over time. Yes, you can quote writings and and historical accounts but there are so many different reasons that can negate your conjecture that it won’t hold water.

      • knowitall

        Well John couldn’t I say the same thing about your argument? I guess you have been back in time and have talked to those inhabitants from back then. Funny.

      • John Delmonte

        You could use that argument, however, those who wrote down the accounts were a lot closer to those times than anyone of this time is now. I do believe that those who wrote down those accounts are more believable than anyone of this time.

        I have seen the lies and distortions that are propagated in the media of today and I have experienced the petty lies of most professors and academics at our universities on a first hand basis. I believe that there is a red thread running through every aspect of their lives, which have even poisoned not only their personal opinions but also their academic works and classroom behavior to the point that free speech is squelched because it is deemed to be “hate” speech.

        “Hate” speech is the panacea of the Left in their effort to limit free speech. The Left has learned well from the dictators of the world.

        So as I said before; the writers of the accounts listed in the Bible are more believable than those of today.

      • knowitall

        Well John, I’m sure the people who would use the Bible to defend slavery, justify segregation, forbid interracial marriage, etc. used exactly the same arguments you use today to deny gay people their rights. Don’t repeat history John, the good side always wins.

      • John Delmonte

        Interracial marriage was never forbidden in the Bible. I know that you are going to bring up the Mosaic Laws talking about not marrying people from the nations. But the “nations” were translated as “Goyim”, which can also be translated as peoples of another faith. Slavery was allowed but only on a temporary basis until the Year of Jubilee and then all slaves had to be let go.

        Homosexuality is a choice for debauchery and that choice leads to eternal damnation. That is why I am hoping to convince people to give it up because I don’t want to see anybody eternally damned.

        I didn’t make the rules, God did.

      • knowitall

        There’s your problem John you think homosexuality is like heterosexuality…. a choice.

      • John Delmonte

        It’s not my problem. It’s the problem of those who try to assuage their conscience and say that they don’t have a choice. They want to blame God for their debauched mind-set. My sins are my choice and I would have to answer to God for them but because I have repented of them and have asked God to forgive me, He has done it and if I have to repent in the future and ask for forgiveness He will do it again, if I am sincere in my repentance.

        We also have to forgive those who sin against us because if we don’t, then according to Matthew 6:15 we will go to Hell.

      • knowitall

        I’m sure you would understand because you clearly had the choice to be heterosexual when you were young. So did everyone else John they just haven’t learned how to flick the switch between hetero and homo.

      • John Delmonte

        I have been approached by homosexuals who wanted me to go along with them. But I know that homosexuality is satanic because of what has happened to ex-homosexuals while they are in the process of fighting against it. I am talking about windows flying open seemingly of their own volition and then the person being attacked by some unseen spirit. Things like that. And it doesn’t surprise me that homosexuality is so prevalent in the San Francisco Area seeing as how San Francisco had been–don’t know if it still is–the headquarters for the church of satan U.S.A. It has probably moved to Washington D.C. because of the evil emanating from that city now.

        It would very much surprise me if Nancy Pelosi were not a satanist. She has those empty eyes that satanist have. Vapid, vain and egotistical.

      • knowitall

        Ok John funny how based on your own judgement one sin is more grave than another. Your sins are not at all demonic but the sin of homosexuality is demonic. Someone who cheats on their significant other (50/50 divorce rates in the USA) or someone who lies once in a while or steals might not be so demonic, though they are having a negative impact, hurting, destroying families and affecting other people by doing those sins. Yet someone who is homosexual and all they want is to love someone is somehow possessed by the demon and it needs to be cast out. So glad God doesn’t even think like that nor was that Christ teaching. Your ideology doesn’t surprise me at all. Have a nice day.

      • John Delmonte

        ALL sin leads to eternal death. However, in the New Testament it says that sexual sins–heterosexual sex outside of marriage or homosexual sex–are sins against your own body. I know people who are heterosexuals and perused pornography and have had the same the demonic attacks that the homosexuals leaving the lifestyle have had.

        I don’t believe that those who profess homosexual “love” for a person of their own sex really love those people.

        On his deathbed Oscar Wild said to his long time partner, “You and I have had many young boys. Did you ever really love them?” Oscar Wild’s homosexual partner said after thinking long and hard, “No.”

        That seems to be typical among homosexuals and I have become acquainted with a few.

      • knowitall

        yeah wouldn’t getting drunk be also a sin against your own body? Gosh wouldn’t any addiction including, drugs and smoking be a sin against their own body? Are you saying that smokers and those that get drunk or buzzed have most likely similar demonic attacks? What about those women that have had an abortion of X or Y reason? Should those women be liberated from the demonic oppression they have inside? Why does it have to be sexual sin only when it comes to demons? Why is it that you keep thinking and bringing the sexual part when it comes to sin?

        Your analogy about homosexual love is like me saying that because I experienced rejection from a Christian all Christians are all the same. Id have to be very narrow minded to generalized and judge an entire belief group based on something I read or something I experience once. We like to point the sin on other people’s lives and like to make then worse than our sin to feel better. Your sins are no more worse than someone who watches pornography or is homosexual (though I don’t think it’s a sin to be homosexual) but based on your standards it should be so.

        Lets not kid ourselves “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left… “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’”

        You seem to be very concerned about eternal damnation, if I were you I’d be worried more about the words the Son of Man speaks of than about a sexual preference he never spoke of.

      • Bella

        How can you say they were more believable when there are so many errors and contradictions in what they wrote?

      • John Delmonte

        I have heard this VERY USED UP AND WEAK arguments before. And no one up-to-now has been able to show me any errors or contradictions.

      • Bella

        I’m not sure what happened to your reply to my post below – it came though to my email but perhaps it was deleted. Anyway, you said “no one up-to-now has been able to show me any errors or contradictions.” Well, elsewhere in this thread I posted a list of some 20-odd items, and have referred back to some of them along the way. I’ve put these and others to a number of Christians who’ve undertaken to explain them, and not one has ever even got back to me.

        Let’s start with Gen 1 – how could there have been day and night (v.5,8,13) before the sun, moon and stars were created (v.18)?

        Or jump to the NT, and take a look at Mark 15:25 and John 19:14. Do tell me how Jesus could have been brought before Pilate at the sixth hour (John) and yet crucified at the third hour (Mark)?

        Or for a whole string of discrepancies, take a look at the numbers in the census of Israelites returning from Babylon, in Ezra 2 and Neh.7. There are probably 15 or more clans where the numbers in the two lists don’t match.

        And I can give you many, many more.

      • Bella

        “The only way you will be able to prove your point is if you were to go
        back in time in a time machine and bring one of those inhabitants to the
        present day and then interrogate him/her about the mores and customs of
        that time.”

        Remind me to use that argument next time someone tries to argue a literal interpretation of the Creation account — including Gen.2:20-24 — which (even with a young-earth theology) must have been written down at least 2500 years after the event!

      • Bella

        v.50 says “They were haughty, and did detestable things before me.” But let’s not take it out of context. Jump to v.53: “But I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters…so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done[54]…You would not even mention your sister Sodom in the day of your pride.” Clearly Sodom wasn’t considered the worst by God.

        John, you have to remember that the understanding of various phrases was heavily influenced by the imperfect translations of the Septuagint. Modern Greek scholarship, informed by many more ancient documents than were available to the early church fathers or to those who translated the KJV, does not altogether agree with the way those verses have previously been interpreted.

        Knowitall, I don’t think there’s really any quibble, even among liberal scholars, that the word “know” was used in a sexual sense in the Sodom account. However, I think it’s also important to remember the context of that passage too – yes, sure, the city elders wanted to have sex with Lot’s guests, and they were apparently prepared to batter the door down to do it! :-) But the sin was the intent to r*pe angels (in NT passages, “lust after other flesh”, which very clearly doesn’t – and can’t – mean homosexuality). Pseudo-Macarius Aegyptius, 4th C, specifies it very clearly, describing it as “their evil purpose against the angels, wishing to work an*l r*pe on them”. Rhetorius Aegyptius, 6th C, uses the same word with women as the victims (ie. it wasn’t a term that only implied homosexuality, but it certainly did connote an*l r*pe). And what did Lot do? He offered his virgin daughters for them to r*pe instead, because that was preferable to the violation of the laws of hospitality.

      • John Delmonte

        Hi, I can’t read Greek but I can read Hebrew.

        In the Hebrew version as well as in the KJV, ESV and in the German Elberfelder version they talk about abominations that were practiced by the Sodomites. I am not sure what the Bible is referring to when it says in verse 53 that the fortunes of Sodom will be restored. I have been to the approximate area where Sodom and Gomorrah once stood and it’s like being in Death Valley.

        But the Bible does condemn Homosexuality and even if the words of Jesus on the subject of homosexuality are not specifically against it, it was certainly implied and understood.

        Just the same here are some other verses that speak out against homosexuality throughout the Bible:

        Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1

        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. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”

        1 Cor. 6:9-10, “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, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

        Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

      • Bella

        Of course there are verses which speak out against homosexuality (although your Corinthians reference uses the same word as the Gen 19 passage and, as I’ve already explained in this thread, is more accurately translated as “an*l r*pists”. The term “homosexual offenders” is used in some versions, and comes closer to the original meaning). In context (that of a culture which depended on fertility and reproduction, both for inheritance and social standing), homosexuality *was* abhorrent. But so were many other things that our culture today no longer needs to follow.

        You can remain in your culture-bound view, of course. But that doesn’t make it right, nor does it make your interpretation of the bible correct.

      • John Delmonte

        How can you be sure that the word is the same in Corinthians and Genesis? I mean Corinthians was written in Greek by a learned scholar and Genesis is in Hebrew.

      • Bella

        The word in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT made in c.300BCE, which is what Paul quoted directly from in Corinthians as in his other letters) is the same.

      • John Delmonte

        How do you know that Paul quoted from the Septuagint?

        Paul was a Bible scholar who studied under Gamaliel. People of his caliber didn’t bother with the translation but went straight to the source.

        He was just as familiar with Hebrew as he was of Greek, Aramaic and I would be surprised if he also weren’t familiar with Latin.

      • Bella

        Well, firstly, the words Paul quoted are exactly those of the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. Secondly, it makes logical sense that he’d quote the Greek translation to a Greek audience. And thirdly, Paul quoted directly from the Septuagint much more than from the Masoretic text. (Out of 93 OT quotes, 51 match the Septuagint, only 4 match the Masoretic text, and 38 don’t match either.) Remember that Hebrew was a liturgical language only at that point; Aramaic was the common spoken language, and Greek the language of those who were literate. In fact, out of some 350 OT quotes in the NT, over 300 are clearly from the Septuagint, including many of those which Jesus used.

      • John Delmonte

        Point to you.

        Yes, it was a Greek speaking audience and yes Paul probably would be more likely to quote from the Septuagint than from the Masoretic text.

        However, I disagree that Hebrew was ONLY a liturgical text by that time. Most certainly Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle-East at that time and spoken by most people of those areas but there were still plenty of Hebrew speakers in that area in spite of the Babylonian captivity 450 years previously.

        Having said that, there are plenty of other scriptures that excoriate homosexuality with which I am sure that Paul was familiar. And having known the Scriptural attitudes towards those practices, I am sure that Paul taught against homosexual practices.

        Right now we are living in The End Times just before the Return of Christ and the Scriptures is very clear as to what would start to happen in those times: 2nd Timothy 4:3-4 and again in Romans 1:20-32.

      • Puckfair52

        Yes they practiced the old tradition of screw anyone who doesn’t belong here. That’s violent assault on foreigners hardly homosexuality! It would be like proclaiming the Israelite’s who took the foreskins of those vanquished were somehow engaging in homosexuality. If you can read Yiddish the Midrash should tell you about the Twin Cities.

        “They had no consideration for the poor, nor for the passing stranger to whom they offered no hospitality; nor would they even sell him any food or water. Once they had found out that Plitith, Lot’s daughter, had secretly given food to a stranger who was near starvation, and they burned her in public. Another time, when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey.

        These and many other similar hideous acts of cruelty by the Sodomites and their neighbors of Gomorrah, had aroused G-d’s anger, and He decided to destroy them completely.”

        Selective cherry picking of violent sexual assault by ostensibly heterosexual men on strangers again is still a crime today i most places.

      • John Delmonte

        I said that I can read Yiddish but I didn’t say that I believe in the Midrash, the Gmarah, the Mishnah etc. I look at them as interesting literature and sayings from man NOT from God in the exact same way I think of the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Tao Te Ching or the Veda etc.

      • Puckfair52

        Weak but it’s your beliefs!

      • John Delmonte

        Why is that weak? There are a lot of good sayings in those books but there are also A LOT of bad things in those books.

  • Peter Johnson

    But Jesus did refer to marriage as being between a man and a woman, so does that imply that homosexual unions are not approved of by God?

    Don’t get me wrong though, I believe that our aversion to homsexuailty is one of the oldest prejudices on Earth and simply stems from the fact that gay sexual orientation is so alien and unusual in regards to the way the majority of us think about sex and love. I do support the rights of gays to have sex with, and marry, those of the same sex–I just wonder how Ms. Naffziger would interpret Christs mention of marriages between two people of the opposite sex.

    • Vicki Poh

      He also said that divorce was a sin. that remarriage after divorce was adultery. He was VERY SPECIFIC about his thoughts on divorce. Why is no one trying to make divorce illegal?

      • Peter Johnson

        I know, I am just trying to find out specifically what Ms. Naffziger would say. Most of the time it seems that our real definitions of sin changes as our cultural perceptions change, so just like divorce was once condemned as adultery, our fear and loathing for gays will no doubt eventually dissipate if we begin to see ourselves simply as human beings—some of which have different sexual orientations.

        The reason I care at all, is because I do think Jesus was a divine teacher of love and tolerance, so it seems strange that he would think divorce, (something that is now so commonplace), as well as something which can save couples from a lifetime of misery, should be arbitrarily condemned as a sin?

        The four gospels are in agreement enough to make me revere most of what they chronicle, but the idea that those who wrote and interpret the Bible as being the perfect and unchallengeable word of God, seem to be cementing their own ideas with a loophole that makes use use circular reasoning in order to discourage free inquiry. Some may think I am blasphemous to even suggest that because the Bible’s authors were only human, that they could also make human mistakes, but I refuse to choose the narrow minded way, and march in lockstep with unexamined and unquestionable dogma—while being afraid to think for myself! So many Christians consider their narrow minded ways as being virtuous because they have accepted the supposed complete and infallible “truth in the Bible, to justify their dogma. But clinging to extreme doctrines without even a glimmer of free thinking, is really just another easy way to avoid truth in favor of the subjective security of not using our minds for critical thinking. Accepting everything as ultimate truth, no matter what, is a way to dispel the anguish of having to seek truth on our own. What many Christians proudly think is the virtue of choosing the harder path, is in reality the easier path. The phrase that comes to mind is—ignorance is bliss!.

        In the book of Exodus, the followers of Moses are taught that anyone who works on the sabbath should be immediately put to death! Luckily Christians no longer cling to such a brutal moral law, so we can now mow our lawns on Saturday, without being stoned to death for our sins. Thus, if some of the prophets predicted the life and death of Jesus as being the will of God, why should that imply that loving him (or God) by not doing any work on the Sabbath, deserves death? NOPE, the bible was written by fallible human beings like ourselves. Its still up to us to decide what parts of it make sense or resonate within our hearts, and which parts are simply incredibly rigid and personally destructive. I know many fundamentalist attempt to explain why Mosaic law was so brutal, but when they do this, they are actually interpreting the bible for themselves,in order to make it fit their notion of its infallibility.

        I don’t believe it! God is a God of love and doesn’t want to kill anyone for working on the sabbath, then or now–no matter what type of rationalization is used to perpetuate that arbitrary and dogmatic reality.

        If I really love Jesus I will have the courage to say so–even if my path is ultimately less secure and less comfortable than that of believers who accept every notion they are fe—primarily to avoid asking significant questions. They seem to do this in order gain mental security and temporal stability!–that’s really the easier way!

  • Thomas Clabaugh

    There is a great difference between love and compromise. Homosexuality is clearly forbidden in the Bible, and if the Bible is the infallible Word of God, as Jesus certainly taught by quoting Scripture to the Devil and in fulfilling prophecy, then it does not matter which writer of the New or Old Testament said it; it is what God said…end of discussion. Any further disagreement is understandable, but simply unacceptable within the context of the Christian faith. “Narrow is the gate.”

    • Bella

      Actually, whether homosexuality is “clearly forbidden” depends on your reading (and accurate translation) of a handful of texts. The word used in Greek (and I have to be careful not to be too blunt here, or the bots kill the post) is one used to describe an*l r*pe, against both men AND women, not loving homosexual intercourse (for which there were quite a number of other Greek words). It is sexual violence that’s condemned, not loving relationships.

      I’ve elsewhere given reasons not to view the bible as infallible (based on the number of errors and inconsistencies rife through its pages), and attempting to dismiss other people’s genuinely-held Christian views as “unacceptable within the context of the Christian faith” sounds much more like a narrow mind than a narrow gate.

      Perhaps you should make a point of exploring the huge number of inclusive texts in the bible instead of focusing only on the exclusive ones.

      • Proud Army Wife

        Apparently you regard yourself as a biblical scholar above all biblical scholars and know more than those experts who actually can read the ancient languages of Holy Scripture. I am wasting no more of my time discussing the issue with you. You have decided what you want scripture to say and not say. I know what it does say regarding homosexual behavior. Nowhere does it say only homosexual rape is wrong. It says all homosexual activity is wrong. If that goes against your lifestyle or your personal beliefs, that’s too bad. As for me, I’ll stick with trying to obey the inspired Word of God. I am curious, though, about all of the inclusive texts you mentioned. Just where does the Bible include homosexual behavior among acceptable behaviors?

      • Bella

        *You* clearly don’t understand the Greek. In both Leviticus and Corinthians, the word (which I can’t reproduce in full here because of the bots) is a*senokoites. That word is ONLY used in other Greek texts to refer to an*l r*pe, and NEVER to refer to loving homosexual relationships. (And, as you probably know, the Greeks had many words to describe different kinds of homosexual relationships – separate ones for those with equal-aged partners and those with an older man and younger one, for example.) It’s crazy to suggest that Paul was using the Greek in some other way than was general usage at the time. That’s why, in 1 Cor 6, the word has been translated as “homosexual offenders”; it’s imperfectly translated when it simply refers to homosexuals in general.

        And you also obviously haven’t read my other posts. I’m straight. This is nothing to do with my lifestyle.

        As for inclusive texts, that was a more general comment in response to your extremely narrow view of what is acceptable to God. There are many texts in the bible which strongly urge inclusivity and non-judgementalism. The Good Samaritan is a good one to begin with. Like the story of Sodom, it urges hospitality and respect above any mindset of exclusivity or enttlement.

        But again, it all comes down to whether you view the bible as inerrant or not. You clearly do. I have found way too many errors and contradictions in it to do so, and I believe that claims of inerrancy which are so easily disproven weaken its authority rather than strengthening it. I’d suggest you start by trying to explain some of those before you make such grand claims of infallibility.

        But I know you won’t – no conservative Christian ever has, when I’ve challenged them. Their own ivory-tower perspective makes it impossible for them to admit that their beliefs about biblical inerrancy may be wrong.

      • Proud Army Wife

        I never said the Bible was infallible or inerrant. I said it’s the inspired word of God and by that I am referring to the original texts. Yes, some translators made mistakes, but I do not believe they made such gross errors as to say homosexual behavior was wrong if God thought it okay. By the way, love the typical liberal last resort insults. A liberal never disappoints.

      • Bella

        No “last resort insults” at all. If you don’t fit the category, then the comment wasn’t applicable to you, and that’s fine. But there *are* many conservative Christians who simply refuse to examine the evidence of scripture itself.

        My apologies for conflating your words with those of another poster on the thread. Sometimes it gets hard to keep everyone distinct :-) But now you have me puzzled – if you don’t claim the bible is inerrant, how can you so vehemently depend on certain texts as being God-dictated rather than man-created? Why would you be so sure that the texts about homosexuality aren’t culturally-driven, in a culture which emphasised marriage for procreation alone (remembering that for them barrenness was considered sufficient reason to divorce, or to take a second wife) and therefore – of necessity – male-female?

      • John Delmonte

        In Romans chapter one talks about the act of an*lr*pe but it also talks about the desire to act it out as being the sin.

        Romans 1:26 and 27 –> “…for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another…”

        How are you going to explain away the “an*lr*pe” on that one seeing as how women don’t have a physiological member to perform such acts?

        I suppose if you do some acrobatics of logic you might be able to misconstrue it to mean “digital” manipulation. But that is an ineffective argument seeing as how an*lr*pe brings pleasure mostly to the r*p*st and not so much to the one on the receiving end and the digital members do not have the same sensations of pleasure as the ph*lic members do.

        So go ahead now and confess that the Bible says that homosexuality is against the Bible.

      • Bella

        R*pe gives pleasure to the r*pist through the exercise of power rather than sexual pleasure.

        But leaving that aside, IMO Romans 1 is clearly referring to idolatry and hate (clearly seen in both the verses prior to and subsequent to the key verses), and the misapplication is because most translations follow the Vulgate (Latin), which is a less-than-perfect rendering of the subtleties of the Septuagint’s meaning. The NIV’s “sexual impurity”, for example, is more accurately translated as “ritual uncleanness” – and even if you’re taking that as sexually, it’s something that occurred after ANY sexual act, according to Leviticus. “Inflamed with lust for one another” (NIV) is one place where the influence of the Latin (“alter alterius”) is particularly evident. The Greek (“eis allelous”) means something more like our “mutually” – that is, “mutually inflamed with passion” and can actually mean “angry with each other”.

  • Brad Ross

    He didnt say anything about bestiality either. Both are a abomination toward nature itself. The uretha is a channel to the blood stream, you could figure out the rest. Many of the diseasese people get in later life come from sexual bacteria.

    • Bella

      What the dickens has the urethra got to do with anything? We’re talking about sex, not urinating. Male sex is no more related to the urethra than female sex is – go and look at a few anatomy diagrams to see where the urethra ends in a woman.

      Bestiality could legitimately be classed as “lusting after other flesh”, which was what was said in the bible about the Sodom incident. The men of the town wanted to have sex with Lot’s visitors, who were *angels*, not humans. That, of course, is very different from lusting after other men, which in no way can be described as “other flesh”; not even as “other” as women!

  • Proud Army Wife

    Christ didn’t need to address the issue of homosexual behavior because the Father had already done so quite clearly. He does, however, make clear that God created us male and female and that a man was to leave his parents and unite with his wife. Jesus forgave those who repented of their sins, but He sure didn’t tell them it was okay to continue their sinful ways.

    • Bella

      God created us male and female **for the purposes of procreation**. Our doctrine has advanced from the culture of when procreation was considered the chief end of marriage, and even the churches no longer insist that a childless marriage is incomplete.

      And if procreation is not the principle purpose of marriage, then the behaviours predicated on other purposes no longer need to be forbidden in order to preserve the original aims. All mainstream churches now acknowledge that a marriage is complete even if it is childless, because the primary purpose of marriage is a lifelong commitment to love and mutual fulfilment. And *that* does not exclude GLBTI relationships.

      Let’s be clear, too, that Jesus didn’t uphold all the laws of the Pentateuch. He didn’t, for example, apply Pentateuch laws to the case of the woman caught in adultery (which would have dictated that they also brought the man involved, and stoned him too). I personally believe that the point of that story was not about forgiveness from sexual sin, but an affirmation that women are not the cause of sexual sin; rather it’s a two-way responsibility and if you haven’t brought the man to be stoned you shouldn’t bring the woman.

      • Proud Army Wife

        Yours is a typical ‘moral relativism’ & ‘human secularism’ type of response. Whose ‘doctrine’ are you referring to in your response? There is not a mainstream church that doesn’t ask God during the marriage ceremony to bless a man and woman with children if it be His will. Jesus was not flouting the Laws of the Pentateuch. He forgave the adulterous woman and told her to sin no more. He knew she was repentant and would do as He asked. He ultimately paid the penalty for her sin (and everyone else’s) with His own life. THAT was the point of the story. You cannot change it to satisfy your own desires. In addition, there are 3 types of law in the Pentateuch: civil law which applied to the ancient Hebrew civilization, ritual or ceremonial law which did not apply to Gentiles, and moral law (the 10 Commandments being the prime example of moral laws, but there were many others) which God intended to apply to everyone. Jesus stated He did NOT come to change the Law, but to fulfill it, which meant that the price for sinning had to be paid and He was willing to be the perfect sacrifice for all of us who confess, repent, and turn from our sins. Again, the Father made it clear what He thought of homosexual behavior. Jesus did not change that, nor did He change any other moral laws. No matter how you slice it, God considers homosexual *behavior* to be an abomination, a sin.

      • Moose

        of course churches are going for the blessing of G.d during the marriage ceremony. That is the purpose. That is such a stupid argument.

        Now G.d says nothing about lesbianism. That tells me that is ok. Great. love it.

      • Proud Army Wife

        Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage. Read the 2nd chapter of Genesis. God says it is not good for MAN to be alone, so He created WOMAN to be his companion and helpmate, not just to be the mother of his children. Nowhere in Scripture will you find anything that condones homosexual behavior on the part of anyone, male or female. Do you not realize that homosexuality can affect both men and women? It is just as wrong for one gender as the other. Your response validates my first sentence in the above post to Bella. You can try to justify immorality any way you want to, but moral relativism doesn’t cut it with God. He loves us so much that He wants us to be perfect and to be so because we want to be. He told us the standards He wants us to live by and He also told us the punishment for not adhering to His Laws/rules/guidelines. That is what a loving parent does. I gave my sons my rules and if they chose to ignore them, they knew what the consequences were. They weren’t always obedient and they were punished for their transgressions. They always knew they were loved, but they also knew that they occasionally disappointed us. However, in the end, they turned out to be fine young men in whom I am very proud. I only hope that my heavenly Father is just as proud of me as I am of them. Bella, of course, would call that kind of loving parenting emotional blackmail, but she would be wrong.

      • Moose

        nowhere in the bible do you find any reference to lesbianism. nowhere in the bible do you find anything about electricity. there is a lot of one man many women stuff which i find destructive.

        I wish i could read the second book of Genesis. But, i can’t and never can you. you can and i can only read translation of translation of translation of translation. So i don’t know.

        By the way, calling G.d the way you do on your email is forbidden. please be careful.

      • JuliePurple

        I don’t get it. Please be careful of what?

      • Moose

        Read Deuteronomy 12:3-4 .

      • JuliePurple

        I read it. It doesn’t seem to be relevant. Could you explain?

      • Moose

        Spelling the word composed with the letter G, the letter O and the letter D is creating a craven image in the mind of many.

      • JuliePurple

        I think that’s rather reading into the verse more than is actually there.
        “Graven”, in this instance, means engraved, or carved, by the way.

      • Bella

        Actually, I’d call it controlling. I encouraged my child to make wise choices for herself, within appropriate boundaries. I didn’t threaten her with eternal damnation (or even disowning, which is probably the human equivalent) if she didn’t follow my guidelines.

        But you’re absolutely right, that procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage. That’s *exactly* why having a truly loving relationship with someone of the same gender shouldn’t be a bar to marriage – because the only way that restricting marriage (or sex in general) to male-female couples makes sense is if procreation is the primary purpose.

      • Proud Army Wife

        1) I never threatened my sons with eternal damnation or with disownment. While my husband and I were strict, we were not controlling and our sons would be the first ones to tell you that. Both actually called us shortly after beginning their college careers to thank us for having set high standards of behavior for them through the years, expecting them to adhere to them, and having appropriate consequences when or if they didn’t. I considered that a high compliment from them. I am glad for you that apparently your daughter is so near perfect that she never pushed the limits of your guidelines…that is truly exceptional. May her perfection continue so that she never has to face consequences of any kind.
        2) I said procreation wasn’t the sole reason for marriage, but it is a major one. To repeat, though, Genesis 2 says God created the female to be the companion and helpmate for the male, that man was to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Nowhere does God or Christ condone homosexual activity or homosexual marriage. Jesus, on the other hand, performed his first miracle at the wedding in Cana, a wedding between a bride and bridegroom.

      • Bella

        1) I’m sure you and I would draw the line between “strict” and “controlling” in different places :-) But regardless of that, I never suggested that you’d threatened your sons with disowning. My point was that your view of God is of a parent who *does* do that, and that’s emotional blackmail rather than healthy discipline. I certainly can’t believe in a God who is less loving than humans manage to be!
        2) As I’ve argued elsewhere in this thread, the Genesis 2 injunction (and the other three verses whch quote it, do not mention children. I believe the emphasis is that a) children are not a crucial component of marriage, and b) the emphasis was on the *man* also leaving his family ties (contrary to Israelite custom) in order for a marriage bond to be properly established.

        I’m not sure whether you’re interpreting Gen 2 as a literal account or not? It makes a big difference as to how immutable you see the fine details of the account.

  • J. Ray Sparks

    Oh Bobbymac, Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29 are all different instances of the *same quote*. So you have one hyperbolic anecdotal reference to S&G from Jesus. And *that* is your basis for embracing bigotry? Seriously? Why not just worship Leviticus in that case?

  • Bobbymac

    Christ is quoted at one point that God created people “in the
    beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man
    and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark
    10:6-9) Nothing is said about any other type of union.
    Also, Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as
    dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12,
    and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these
    cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality. (Genesis
    18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59).
    Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be
    understood.

    • K K

      Christ is quoted. lol that always sounds weird to me

    • Stan

      I think you have some very interesting and compelling points. The quote Jesus made about the marriage of man and woman was in context a prohibition against divorce except for cases of “sexual immorality”. He goes on to say that whoever cannot take such a strict decree should abstain from marriage, like the “eunuchs who have been so from birth”. Could this be a reference to homosexuals? I don’t think sterility from birth is/was such a common condition. If it is regarding gays, to me it sounds more of a recommendation than a condemnation.

      Btw, I can’t stand that cliche you mentioned at the end of your post! It uses fear in order to get people to conform to Christianity.

    • Bella

      And *I* would much prefer to believe in a god whose love and compassion are limitless, and who won’t condemn me to hell for legalistic reasons, but will judge my life based on the love and compassion I’ve shown to others.

      I agree with Stan that your cliche uses fear and intimidation to compel people to believe…which is what the doctrine of hell is all about too. I personally can’t reconcile a god of love with a god who uses emotional blackmail to demand worship.

      • Proud Army Wife

        You really don’t know what scripture says. God is a loving parent who wants us to please Him because we WANT to please Him, not because we have to. Just as any good loving parent sets down behavior guidelines and limits with punishments for disobeying, so God does with us. He does it because He loves us and wants the best for us. He gave us free will so that we could choose between being with Him in a loving relationship for all time or being permanently separated from Him for all eternity (that is what hell is…separation from the Father).

      • Bella

        I know very well what scripture says. As I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, I grew up in the faith, and I’m still a Christian. My point is that you don’t seem to see the contradiction in what you said. A “loving parent” doesn’t threaten their children with eternal damnation for not obeying their rules. Are you a parent? Can you understand this point from a parent’s perspective? If so, then logic ought to show you the contradiction, and the tiny (limited) god you have to believe in to reconcile it. If God is a “loving parent”, surely he’s *more* loving than human parents, not less!

    • Proud Army Wife

      well said, bobbymac

  • Charles Rollins

    Personality is not a lifestyle, it is brain oriented. The ones in the media and the ones I know definitely say they CHOSE to be gay, read it. You are just trying to find a logical explanation because you see nothing wrong with it and you can’t stand the thought of someone admitting they chose it because that flies in the face of everyone who says they are born that way, which you are not. You are embarrassing yourself with lack of medical knowledge an lack of knowledge of what is written so I’m out!

    • Bella

      “Personality is not a lifestyle, it is brain oriented.” Exactly my point! Personality is brain-oriented, despite there being no “personality gene”. Thus there’s no reason why same-sex sexual orientation can’t also be brain-oriented, despite there being no “gay gene”. In other words, saying there’s no gay gene doesn’t refute the possibility of people being born gay.

      I don’t know who you’re referring to who says they chose to be gay. I’ve certainly never heard anyone say that, but perhaps you could cite some examples? Without that, my best guess is that yoiu’re referring to people who chose to express the sexual orientation they already felt. That is, that they *are* gay, and they chose to live their lives according to that rather than pretending to be straight. I’ve known many people do that!

      I’ve also known many who live in a gay relationship for a time, despite actually being straight (or bisexual). Those people may well be considered to have “chosen to be gay”, but they’re actually only choosing to LIVE gay, rather than BE gay.

      • Omgurd

        I agree with bella. I have never heard anyone say they chose it. Now i have heard of people killing themselves because they cant change it..

      • Charles Rollins

        Oh really? do a search on actress Cynthia Nixon from Sex and the City. How many gays does it take to prove that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle? I had two cousins who both died of aids who both said they got tired of being spurned by women and chose to be gay to be with men. Obviously you all are embarrassing yourselves by not doing the research needed to carry on an intelligent conversation about this.

      • Bella

        You just proved my point. You’re referring to people who chose to LIVE gay, rather than BE gay. “Getting tired of being spurned by women” is very very different from never being sexually attracted to women in the first place.

        As for Cynthia Nixon, it sounds like you haven’t read all of what she said. Firstly, she said “I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.” In other words, she’s tried *living* both ways, and prefers to live gay. (I’d suggest that probably means she’s bisexual in orientation.) Secondly, she also said “For me, it is a choice. I understand that for many it’s not.” So, despite acknowledging that for her it was a choice (which of course it is for bisexuals), she also clearly acknowledged that it isn’t a choice for everyone.

        If you wish to continue this discussion, please refrain from verbal abuse. People who hold a different opinion from yours are not necessarily ignorant, and ad hominem attacks are not part of respectful discussion.

      • kman

        I disagree.

        No one is born with the instilled concept I am going to be gay. It comes from the surrounding environment that it is okay you can be whatever you want to be. So it is a choice. when the truth is they are men or woman and we should be educating our childern that it is inappropriate way or life style to live.

        I know many gay people and most of them are nice however they say this was what I was. I talk to them and I always find some friend or relative has abused them weather directly or not like a friend was abused and they abuse another friend. these things has influenced their decision And I see they deny that as even a possibility.

      • Bella

        No-one is born with the instilled “concept” that they’re going to be straight, either. It’s not a thing you think; it just is. It’s what you feel. And to say that “it comes from the surrounding environment that it is okay” is just plain ridiculous. There have been gay people down through the centuries, even when homosexuality was punishable by imprisonment and even death. They weren’t in an environment that said it was okay. They were impelled into a lifestyle that was eminently NOT okay, by their deep inner desires.

        As to abuse, yes, it’s quite possible that there’s a higher correlation between gays and abuse victims (although I doubt you have any hard data to prove that). But you’re confusing correlation with causation, and cause with effect. Gay people, particularly those just developing their sexual identity and aware that it’s a minority experience (and possibly profoundly criticised by their family), are extremely vulnerable and abusers take advantage of that. But that’s not the same as saying the abuse caused their homosexuality.

      • kman

        So we can agree that the new borns do not know what sexual orientation they are going to be?

      • Bella

        Not in the way you’re trying to make it mean. My point is that even though newborns don’t have sexual feelings (or at least, we don’t think they do…but we don’t really know, of course), that doesn’t mean they can’t already have their sexual orientation hard-wired in.

        Newborns aren’t aware of being a boy or a girl, either, but (for the most part) their gender is determined long before they become aware of such distinctions.

    • http://www.InsaneSkiTrain.com Sans Flangi

      Religion is also a choice, so I guess it would be OK to put a sign out in front of my store that says “I don’t serve your god, so I won’t serve you, either.” That’s what religious freedom is all about, right?

    • VelvetBlueEyes

      You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

  • CJ

    How about doing the right thing, not because you are afraid of “consequences” but because it’s the right thing. Just because some people need faith as a crutch to help them stay true to living a moral life doesn’t mean other people can’t live that life without all the fairy tales.

    • kman

      It you do not educate childern from the beginning how do they act as an adult.

      9 out of 10 childern with adopt evil and negative behaviors over behaviors we know should be morally correct If there is no guidance during childhood.

  • Texas Proud

    And a child molester can’t help themselves and was born that way too… so are all things, and every choice beyond our control? You just are what you are and it’s all good? No sin, no consequence? Why have any guidelines, morals, etc at all then? We’ll all be like dogs humping legs because we feel like it.. or cheating, abandoning children without commitment. You can have half the equation without recognizing what a lame argument “born this way” really is. People have free will and they choose to ACT on sin. That is why it’s called a choice.

    • charley williams

      Child molestation is a whole different issue ! That’s a Issue of doing something to someone that can’t consent !

      The majority of molester’s would be considered Heterosexuals !

    • Bella

      That’s a very artificial (and not very appropriate) analogy. Of course we have moral/ethical rules – that’s the point of being human and living in a community. But the underlying principle is “Don’t do things which hurt/damage others in the community or the community’s survival”. (Which is why attempting suicide used to be a criminal act.) But outside that principle, members of the community are, and should be, free to be who they are. If they act out of love and care for their fellow human beings, then what they do should not be considered sinful.

      Child molestation is predation on the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society; homosexuality is not.

  • kman

    It has been answered for me.

    There is just no way I can justify my answer to you.see the point is you will always say it is right because there is no ability to say well I may be right or I may be wrong.
    I may be wrong but there is only one who can answer that. And that is not me.

    • Bella

      Oh, DO tell us! What are these wonderful explanations for every one of the thousands of contradictions in the bible? Why keep such valuable knowledge to yourself?

      • kman

        The bible is so unclear even to a professor of the bible. Only the one who wrote it can answer it with the full intent of the passage.

        this world has been place for some say 2000, another says , 6000, I see this world as 12500 to12590 years. there is a lot of time for evil to rephrase to hide the true intent.

      • Bella

        Nice copout, although not at all plausible,

        By the way, you just convinced me you’re a fringe cultist – surely only a fringe cultist would narrow the earth’s age down to a range of 90 years in 12,000!

      • kman

        Science is an inspiring subject and we assume we have the facts when we found some things to appear to work.
        The thing is we are learning and our lord knows how it all works.
        I base my opinion from some landmarks on earth from where it is believed it started at to the point where it is now. But I do not know it is only an suggestion.

powered by the Paulists