Where are the bible passages condemning Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petersmate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What I object to is the fact that hardly any other part of Leviticus is taken any notice of. By this standard any catholic wearing a garment made from mixed fabric is a sinner, and we should all keep Kosher
Well yeah…and then of course, no one wants to talk about Genesis 19 either, now do they? Talk about the proverbial elephant in the room…
1] The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, 2] and said, “My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the street.” 3] But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5] and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6] Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7] and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8] Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9] But they said, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10] But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door. 11] And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door. 12] Then the men said to Lot, “Have you any one else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place; 13] for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” 14] So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. 15] When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.” 16] But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city. 17] And when they had brought them forth, they said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.” 18] And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; 19] behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. 20] Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there – is it not a little one? – and my life will be saved!” 21] He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken. 22] Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zo’ar. 23] The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zo’ar. 24] Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor’rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25] and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26] But Lot’s wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27] And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD; 28] and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomor’rah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. 29] So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
 
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

Rom 1:26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,

Rom 1:27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

1 Cor 6:9,10 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Tim 1:10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, 5 kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,

Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

You left out Genesis 19 which some people interpret as condemning homosexuality. But it seems to refer to men of Sodom attempting to engage in anal rape with visitors to the city. That interpretation is supported by other references to Sodom in the Bible. Their activity is obviously not motivated by a desire to develop a mutually consensual sexual relationship. Rather, this is an act of humiliation that was common in the Middle East at the time. So Genesis 19 clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality.

The phrase in Leviticus 20 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman” is a clear mistranslation of the original Hebrew which reads “If a man lies with a man in a woman’s bed”. Thus the verse is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior generally but only if it is on a bed belonging to a woman. Leviticus 18 is similar.

Some English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures also contain other verses referring to homosexuals. But these are clear mistranslations; they are referring to male and female temple prostitutes.

Thus it would seem that the Hebrew Scriptures do not condemn homosexual behavior.

Romans 1 refers to a group of men and women with a heterosexual orientation who engage in same-gender sexual activity during an orgy. since it is against their personal nature – against their sexual orientation – it is condemned. The verse is unrelated to homosexuality. The same chapter could be used to condemn any persons with a homosexual orientation engaging in opposite-gender sexual activity.

1 Cor 6 and 1 Timothy 1 contain words whose meaning has been lost. It seems that they were invented by Paul. Translators have been inserting their own interpretations here. In the early years of Christianity, they were said to refer to people with soft morals; later it was believed to refer to masturbation; today’s translations refer to homosexuals; who knows what it will be interpreted as referring to in the future?

Jude 7 refers back to Genesis 19 – to men in the city of Sodom trying to anally rape angels.who were visiting the city. Angels are a different species from humans. Therefore the verse would seem to refer to a condemnation of bestiality, not of homosexuality.

So it can be argued that the Bible is silent on same-gender sexual behaviors when conducted by persons with a homosexual orientation. See www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
 
Matthew 19:4-6 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’

Nothing here about two people joining together.

Jesus states man and woman become one flesh.

Nothing in that quote that talks about a person remaining single all their life.

Nothing in that quote about a man marrying multiple women. For example:
In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives. The Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) contains no negative comments on such marriages except for Solomon’s marriages which were criticized because he married many non-Hebrew wives who followed Pagan religions.

And finally, nothing about a man leaving his family of origin and entering into a marriage, civil union or living-together arrangement with another man.
 
The basis for the teaching against homosexuality is found in the very fabric of creation itself.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

The author of this scripture didn’t just add the fact that they were male and female as an interesting detail. He could have chosen to mention that they had blue eyes and brown eyes, or blond hair and black hair, but the author chose male and female as a visible sign that we are created in the divine image.

Our masculinity and femininity, and our ability to create new life are the visible signs of our having been created in the image of God.

All other Biblical texts on the issue are illuminated by this text. This is the basis for all other Biblical texts on the subject, Jesus’ teaching, Judaism’s teaching and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

-Tim-
God could have created a million humans – about half male and half female – if he wished. But he took a simpler route and created one male heterosexual and one female heterosexual and gave them the job of populating the Earth via sexual intercourse.

And so they did. Their descendents are mostly female and male heterosexuals, along with about 5% lesbians and gays, and another 5% who are male or female bisexuals.

My opinion is that God loves diversity and variety: males and females, different skin colors, different body types, languages, sexual orientations, talents, abilities gender identities, etc.
 

OCRT wrote: *My opinion is that God loves diversity and variety: males and females, different skin colors, different body types, languages, sexual orientations, talents, abilities gender identities, etc. *​

The problem with this stance, such as it is, resides in its personal nature. What really is necessary to know is what God Himself meant in Bible passages usually associated with homosexuality. For a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, whether a gay Bible-believing Christian (and there are such) or a more conventionally heterosexual Christian believer, the question is what God intended in these divinely revealed (but not numerous) passages, not how we personally one by one take them to be.

It should be clear to an hetero Christian that a gay man is not going to put his sexuality “on ice”, with much frustration and torment, or to undergo psycho-sexual therapy that has no assured result, just because others feel an assurance, about the meaning of these ancient passages that excludes the practice of gay sexuality, that he does not share. There has to be personal conviction about this issue. Patience is needed to help him to deal with a biblical and moral issue which is not just speculative and outside his own life concerns, however it may be just so, and only that, for heterosexuals.
 
But the unitive aspect isn’t possible. “Unitive” doesn’t just mean “uniting any two people.” Then marriage wouldn’t be different from friendship. And in fact, as I see it a same-sex relationship is just “friendship with benefits.” It’s not even a flawed approximation of marriage. It has its own proper good (plus the distorted sexual element) which is distinct from that of marriage.Edwin
Interesting thoughts there 🙂 It’s clear to me that many Christians aren’t thrilled that civil marriage exists in the first place, given the inseparability of the unitive, procreative, and sacramental aspects of marriage. “Civil marriage” would be a misnomer, an oxymoron, from the perspective of the correct sacramental view of marriage. Unfortunately, the genie is already out of the bottle.

I recently read an article from a Catholic who acknowledged–with some regret–that many homosexuals are given the impression that they are paying for the sins of their heterosexual brethren. Civil marriage, pre-martial sex, and divorce are rampant; and preventing civil homosexual marriage is perceived by many Christians as the “last stand” for morality and social order, as far as sexual ethics are concerned.

This still doesn’t answer the question of whether it is justified for Christians to want to legislate against civil homosexual marriage, which is not a church marriage and would be entered into not merely by homosexual Christians, but also by Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and non-believers – that is, largely by non-Christians inhabiting the civil society. Few would maintain that “marriage” as such is illegitimate within a non-Christian context, insofar as the sacramental element cannot be properly realized – not legally illegitimate, at least. That no same sex couple will ever be married within a Catholic church is highly probable, if not an absolute certainty. But what about same sex civil marriage within the civil society of the United States of America? It is a real church-state conundrum, a strange counterpoint to the current healthcare mandate. Why should a non-Christian in a secular society accept an admittedly Christian view of marriage?

The problem is that our culture has bought into the idea that marriage is just two people who love each other. Downplaying the procreative element is part of that, but the point in the orthodox view is that you can’t separate procreative, unitive, and sacramental. They all make sense in light of each other.
As I see it, the ordination of women is different, because there are good reasons from within the Church’s tradition to ordain women.

Those who defend both and those who oppose both claim that the two cases are the same, but I find this hard to see.Edwin
I appreciate that candor. It occurs to me that the dynamic here is ironically very different As a non-Catholic, perhaps it’s none of my business to tell the church that it cannot have legitimate reasons for not ordaining women. If a Catholic woman accepts that teaching and decides to stay within the church without reservation, that’s her choice. The difference there, though, is that the Catholic church is not saying that women should not be allowed to be senators, judges, or president of the United States. This non-eligibility of women for the priesthood is due to their beliefs about the special requirements of the sacrifice of the Mass.

With same sex marriage, it is different. Activist Catholics are not merely saying, “no same sex marriage will ever be blessed within the Catholic church.” Instead, they are saying, “no same sex marriage should ever be entertained by the civil society, even though heterosexual civil marriage–“married in the eyes of the state,” which indeed is a misuse of the word “marriage”, in their view–is an accepted reality.”
You seem to view doctrinal positions as a matter of arbitrary “will.” I see no good reason to take such a cynical position.Edwin
Interesting point. Perhaps it is cynical : - ) I think a case could be made that doctrinal decisions by those in a position to make those decisions–such as a pope–are informed by conscience. Conscience must be informed by the heart–and, ultimately, by the Holy Spirit–in order to be a legitimate expression of conscience; an awareness of truth. When John XXIII called Vatican II–which, granted, was not necessarily a change in doctrine–it was a result of having kept his eyes open to the world around him, and his heart and mind engaged. He perceived that changes needed to be made. I suppose my point was that, if a pope or a body of bishops began to perceive things differently–based on the “signs of the times” and the moral arguments that were put forth from both inside and outside its ranks, which had not been enunciated before–they might find themselves in a position where they perceive the messages of Scripture and Tradition differently, as well. This would not be as a matter of arbitrary will, but guided by conscience and the Holy Spirit. That certainly was the case with slavery, whereas the words of Peter’s epistle (“slaves, obey your masters”) had led many to believe that the issue of slavery was not necessarily front and center as regards Christian morality. They were so used to it, that it was that very familiarity that had blinded many Christians as to its true nature.

Edwin
 
–they might find themselves in a position where they perceive the messages of Scripture and Tradition differently, as well. This would not be as a matter of arbitrary will, but guided by conscience and the Holy Spirit. That certainly was the case with slavery, whereas the words of Peter’s epistle (“slaves, obey your masters”) had led many to believe that the issue of slavery was not necessarily front and center as regards Christian morality. They were so used to it, that it was that very familiarity that had blinded many Christians as to its true nature.

Edwin
and nobody preaches this:
*Phm 1:16 Not now as a servant, but instead of a servant, a most dear brother, especially to me. But how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord? *
 
You left out Genesis 19 which some people interpret as condemning homosexuality.
But since you disagree with this interpretation, why bring it up?

I think one can make a case that homosexual rape is presented in Gen. 19 as worse than heterosexual, though there are other reasons why Lot would offer his daughters (they are “his” and thus offering them protects his guests and would be seen as heroic generosity; women may be seen as of less value than men, so that a woman being violated was a lesser atrocity–I suppose that is an argument for homosexual rape being worse, but not one, I hope, modern Christians would embrace!).
The phrase in Leviticus 20 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman” is a clear mistranslation of the original Hebrew which reads “If a man lies with a man in a woman’s bed”. Thus the verse is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior generally but only if it is on a bed belonging to a woman. Leviticus 18 is similar.
This is not a “clear” mistranslation–the interpretation you offer is clever, but I don’t think it’s the consensus of scholars (it certainly, as you admit, isn’t found in the standard modern translations). Note that this Jewish online article, which takes a pro-gay position, does not endorse this interpretation. I am no Hebrew expert, but I do have basic reading knowledge, and the word in question is a participle. Participles can certainly be used as nouns, but one can’t assume that they are being so used. This particular word is used to mean “bed” in some places, but is also used for the act of intercourse.
Thus it would seem that the Hebrew Scriptures do not condemn homosexual behavior.
Well, that requires you to believe that Jews pretty uniformly misinterpreted their own Scriptures for centuries. . . .
Romans 1 refers to a group of men and women with a heterosexual orientation who engage in same-gender sexual activity during an orgy. since it is against their personal nature – against their sexual orientation – it is condemned. The verse is unrelated to homosexuality. The same chapter could be used to condemn any persons with a homosexual orientation engaging in opposite-gender sexual activity.
That’s laughably anachronistic. There’s no reason to think that Paul had any conception of “homosexual” or “heterosexual” orientation. Nor is there any evidence that he was specifically thinking about orgies.

There are better arguments (on your side) with regard to both of these passages. Your arguments are strained and will only convince those who very badly want to be convinced.
1 Cor 6 and 1 Timothy 1 contain words whose meaning has been lost. It seems that they were invented by Paul. Translators have been inserting their own interpretations here. In the early years of Christianity, they were said to refer to people with soft morals; later it was believed to refer to masturbation; today’s translations refer to homosexuals; who knows what it will be interpreted as referring to in the future?
I think that it’s likely that they do refer to “active” and “passive” forms of homosexual behavior (separately), but I agree that they aren’t certain.

The strongest argument on the progay side is that there’s simply no discussion in the Bible of the concept of homosexual inclination or the idea of relationships between persons of the same sex which have the same virtues as a good marriage. Homosexuality and pederasty were routinely equated (and still are in conservative circles).

Hence, I think we can’t simply look at prooftexts but must ask the bigger questions about the purpose of sexuality in the Christian tradition. How does the Christian faith “construct” human sexuality? How does an orthodox Christian “construction” run counter to the constructions of “secular” society?

Edwin
 
Contarini wrote: *I think one can make a case that homosexual rape is presented in Gen. 19 as worse than heterosexual, though there are other reasons why Lot would offer his daughters (they are “his” and thus offering them protects his guests and would be seen as heroic generosity; women may be seen as of less value than men, so that a woman being violated was a lesser atrocity – I suppose that is an argument for homosexual rape being worse, but not one, I hope, modern Christians would embrace!)…

The strongest argument on the progay side is that there’s simply no discussion in the Bible of the concept of homosexual inclination or the idea of relationships between persons of the same sex which have the same virtues as a good marriage. Homosexuality and pederasty were routinely equated (and still are in conservative circles).*​

I am uncomfortable ranging in matters where deep Hebrew and Greek languistic problems matter so much (i.e., those dealing with particular languages, rather than with the concept and human practice of language per se). However, we all (not just the scholars of these ancient languages) need to struggle on the level that we are able with this matter; it is not one on which a Christian can forego opinion, if he really is a follower of Christ our Lord.

That said, if one passage seems obvious to me in what is being recounted with special horror and disgust, it is Genesis 19. This is a matter of RAPE; whether it is the rape of (seeming) males or of the women offered in their stead. Rape is wrong and rape is traumatic, :eek: whichever the gender of the one(s) so violated, and to inflict rape – and with such arrogance, at that, in the light of the standards of hospitality so important in the Near East – is reason enough for the Bible`s censure of these men of Sodom.

Regarding the equating of homosexuality with pederasty that you note, there is also the additional question of cultic harlotry, male or female, in the societies of the Old and New Testaments alike. Temple and shrine prostitution of any kind was an abomination to Hebrew and Greek believers in these ancient times. Indeed, I think that Christians today would find the incidence of cultic prostitution or promiscuity, gay or hetero, on sacred premises utterly disgusting and about as disrespectful and blasphemous as any behaviour possibly can be on in such settings! So often in the few Bible passages that there are in the O.T. (including the deuterocanon) and in the N.T., the homosexuality (and heterosexual immorality) being condemned are in relation to places of worship and of veneration. Some things are so obvious that their importance needs emphasising in our foolish times. Whether sex, homosexual or otherwise, elsewhere is being condemned could be irrelevant to the message of the Bible passages being considered.
 
Whether sex, homosexual or otherwise, elsewhere is being condemned could be irrelevant to the message of the Bible passages being considered.
and it is the homosexual act that our church states as disordered
 
and it is the homosexual act that our church states as disordered
Do you maybe think that this apply ONLY to men->woman
(and not kids, animals, gay, etc, perversions) ??

Mat 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to **lust **after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I’d rather think it is a warning to the straight, like this one also:

1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour,
1Th 4:5 Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God:

AND these should never be perverted to support any perversion being of “love”
 

Peter`s Mate and Cyber Angel wrote: And it is the homosexual act that our church states as disordered.

Pardon me, but don`t you think that RAPE :eek: in any form also is disordered behaviour? It seems so obvious that Gen. 19 is about rape, first and foremost. Any other factors (gay or bisexual proclivity, inhospitatlity, arrogance, etc.) is, in the case of each of them, a side issue in this particular passage.
 

Peter`s Mate and Cyber Angel wrote: And it is the homosexual act that our church states as disordered.

Pardon me, but don`t you think that RAPE :eek: in any form also is disordered behaviour? It seems so obvious that Gen. 19 is about rape, first and foremost. Any other factors (gay or bisexual proclivity, inhospitatlity, arrogance, etc.) is, in the case of each of them, a side issue in this particular passage.
Actually, I’m afraid that inhospitality may be stressed more than rape–after all, Lot offers his daughters as a substitute for his guests. That may be because raping women was seen as less serious than raping men, but it’s probably even more so because his first responsibility was to protect his guests, even by sacrificing “his” daughters (I put “his” in scare quotes because the cultural assumption here was that they were “his” in a more absolute manner than we would recognize today–in C. S. Lewis’s terms, the word was being used closer to “my teddy bear which I can pull to pieces if I like”).

Lot is described in II Peter as “just,” but arguably that’s comparative. . . .

Edwin
 
Do you maybe think that this apply ONLY to men->woman
(and not kids, animals, gay, etc, perversions) ??

Mat 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to **lust **after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I’d rather think it is a warning to the straight, like this one also:

1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour,
1Th 4:5 Not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God:

AND these should never be perverted to support any perversion being of “love”
No matter who you are Homosexual or heterosexual ( there are no separate rules for any of us) you are required to have virtues such as self control and self discipline

“Carry your cross” there are so many other bible passages we could link into this
 
Contarini and Peter`s Mate,

There are so many factors involved in Gen. 19 that this passage of Holy Scripture just is not a viable and definitive witness to the guilt of homosexuality, other than, I think reasonably (but not beyond that) a complicating factor. The crimes of rape and inhospitality (which are related, it not being exactly hospitable to rape seemingly male visitors!) compound each other. It is better for all concerned to look elsewhere for the O.T.`s attitude toward homosexuality per se. Scriture interpreting Scripture, Sirach 16:8-9 takes issue with the men of Sodom for their arrogant insolence, not mentioning the nature of the sex demanded of the visitors. It just does not make sense to put a weight of evidence on the matter of homosexuality that this Gen. 19 cannot sustain.
 
Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
 

Peter`s Mate and Cyber Angel wrote: And it is the homosexual act that our church states as disordered.

Pardon me, but don`t you think that RAPE :eek: in any form also is disordered behaviour? It seems so obvious that Gen. 19 is about rape, first and foremost. Any other factors (gay or bisexual proclivity, inhospitatlity, arrogance, etc.) is, in the case of each of them, a side issue in this particular passage.
Rape is bad
Homosexuality is bad

When things get complicated, look at this:

*Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. *
 

Cyber Angel wrote: Rape is bad. Homosexuality is bad.

FInally a more balanced comment 👍! However, I still would say that rape :eek: is worse. How can anyone not think so?!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top