Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


No the bible condemns the hate, nationalism and patriotism, and selfish that places like Sodom imposed on strangers and visitors.

And they were cursed.

The Lord encouraged male female for reproduction, but homosexuality is just something some are born with, or others chose. Just like lesbianism, asexuality, bisexuality etc.

Hate is what is condemned and acts of hate.

reply to post by pause4thought


i'm not equating anything i'm pointing out fact.. and i read it my self.. when i find it i'll quote it..but for a fact its in revelations .. and look whos talking about reading the bible in its entireity.. and just to make a point.. what i said about nazis.. john hagee just went through the wringer for his anti semitism by pointing out scripture that suports his opinion..

[edit on 23-5-2008 by scorand]

Originally posted by andre18
Question – If the bible isn’t against homosexuals then why are Christians? So homosexuals can get into heaven just like heterosexuals can…?

This may be a bit foolish, but if you haven't noticed, we are already in heaven. Earth is a planet circling a star in heaven... The kingdom of heaven is no secret anymore. Soon the nazis and the pedos will have their punnishment, for love can't stand 'em any longer. They lie and they get away with murder, genocide and psychopatic rape. I tend to laugh at their faces, for they are already judged. No wonder the homos are so gay. For there will be redemption...

[edit on 1/6/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,
Dear Readers,

Well, I found that this thread is actually quite relevant now that we are living in the time in which America is involved in the very serious discussion about what the society must do with respect to the so called homosexuality.

Let me give some light in your discussion by mentioning some important points of this business:

- From the Point of view of the Scriptures it is clear that Eve is created by God after Adam existed, as an ideal mate of him. However it is also true that Adam was un unable to reproduce him alone, that is the principal reason for which God took, according with Genesis, a rib of Adam to mold her. So the division of Genres obey to the need not only of companion but also of reproduction of the Specie.

- Now the point is how urgent is the need of Reproduction in a world in which there were only two individuals of a specie, like the one described in Genesis, than the one that exist now when there are 6500 millions of persons in the world? Is it possible that the nature is also creating mechanisms of natal control to avoid a complete chaos if the demografic explosion continue?

- To deny that in the Bible there are no situations in which clearly is showed that it is allowed by God the love between persons of the same Genre, not related at all by blood, is a mistake.

For instance we can recall the famous case of David, the one that laterly become King of Israel & his friend Jonathan, that was fell in love of him. That was actually a genuine and sincere love of one man to other, the discussion is not if that was love but probably what type of love.

That was not the only case like this in the Bible:
Daniel and Ashpenaz, or The Centurion And Pais - His Beloved or Same Genre Lover in Mathew 8, and how about the Ethiopian Eunuch mentioned at Acts 8:26-40? For more information about this examples pls chk:

www.gaychristian101.com...


- About the rules of Sexual Morality mentioned extensively in this thread and in others in ATS, and that essentially come from Leviticus, let me point to one aspect: It is quite clear that the thing that is condemned as a terrible sin, that is the meaning of abomination, is not the love between two men but the act of Sodomy, that is, the Anal Intercourse and/or probably certain ways of oral one.

- Sodomy or not Sodomy is the question, if that is part of homosexuality we can say that there is no way to justify it from the Christian point of view, but when we think that it is not necesarily part of it the business changes entirely.

- I am of the opinion that Sodomy is not sinonimous of Homosexuality, and it can be Sodomy without Homosexuality, even between people classified as heterosexuals, and that must be considered as an abomination, when a man-woman couple prefer anal or oral intercourse that the one through the sexual organs.

- I also believe that there are many physical ways to express love that are more pleasant, tender, lovely and healthy than Sodomy. Sodomy is in many aspects the remanent of the sexual practices related with the abuses done during epochs in which there was sexual slavery in the world.

- One of the huge aspects of this discussion is that we are trying to compare the customs and ideosincracy of one time with other, we are trying to match the thinking of men of 1000 or 2000 years before Christ with the one of 2000 years after him. We must take in account that our epoch is the post modernity that for our subject means Post-Freudian, so we are still living under the influence of the values or antivalues that Sigmund Freud and his Psicoanalisys carried.

- it was Freud the one that created the sexual labels, there is no mention before his epoch of the terms Homosexual, bisexual , heterosexual, that was his personal invention. Pay atention to this point: to declare openly the validity of those classifications necessarily we must accept that the humans are sexual beings, something that is subject to discussion, are we really sexual beings or we are living beings with sexuality?

- There is a great difference to accept that we are sexual beings or to reject such approach to the human psicology, since if we deny it as false we are going to understand that perhaps many impulses or emotions that under the Freudian Psicology are considered as Sexual are really Affective, are emotional needs and not sexual ones.

- That is precisely my point, and i feel is the one of Bible, there is no discussion at all about that the scriptures don't condemn the affectivity between persons of the same genre, but other very different thing is the sexual contact, in that aspect there are rules to follow.

- Now it is possibly that many of you are thinking Well but if there is no sexual contact there is no Love at all, but is that really true? I say that No, it could be sexual contact without love at all!

In Many aspects that is the point that the discusion of Gay civil unions is reaching at present: it could be convenient for the society to accept them since that can be the way to reduce the promiscuity between Gays and make them persons engaged in serious relationships, in other words, responsible unions based on feelings and not mere instinct.

I am convinced that feelings are more important in our specie that instinct and that the so called homosexuality is in reality homoaffectivity, homoerotism or homophilia, in other words the need of love given & shared by persons of the same genre.

There are many experiments and research works in modern Psicology, of course nonfreudian, that shows how the thesis of Freud can be wrong or at least be based on so relative half truths.

For exmple : between two identical twins, that of couse share all their genetic information, one can be homooriented while the other is heterooriented, that is enough proof that the so called Gay Gen is a deceit or chimera, something that does not exist at all!

If you want to know more about my points of view about this topic and my prediction about how this is going to evolute through the future, pls read my thread on BTS at:

End of the Millenium Plague: cease of the AIDs & the Sexual Revolution/
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Thanks for your atention,

Your friend,

The Angel of lightness


[edit on 6/12/2008 by The angel of light]

Your general view is fair enough, but still in the light of scripture, wrong. the Leviticus law in mention prohibits a certain pagan ritual where largely hetrosexual men had ritual sex with other men to honor the Ba'als in a ritual that reach atleast as far back as to Sodom and the time of Lot. While the ritual with analsex between men is concidered strictly or merely a ceremonial sin, sex with children and relatives is concidered a moral sin, meaning it is also a ceremonial sin to perform such in a ritual.

Anal or oral sex has nothing to do with Sodomy. Sodomy is about humiliation and power. It is rape of the most abominable kind.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,

Well Neo Christian Mystic, I feel that you are missing some important aspects of the story told in Genesis about Sodom & Gomorrah, points that are crucial to understand that the lack of hospitality that you mention was actually part of the problem, but not the Main issue here that is the cruelty of that people that acted not only with violence but with sexual perversity against messengers of God.

Let me attack this point from four different sources, all of them with enough authority to give us the Light that we need to Understand this important business:

From The writings of Flavio Josefus, the most famous Jew historian of the time of Christ:

This is his version about the story occured in the two cities of the Dead Sea:

"And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population."

—Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202

From this writing it is clear that the people of Sodom & Gomorrah found sexually attracted the Angels sent by God to visit Lot, Notice how Josephus underline that they looked beautiful to that people, in other word handsome.

And the second source is the book of Genesis itself, about this same facts:
let me clarify first that the verb To know here has a sexual meaning, pointed directly to sexual intercourse, according with all the translators.

Book of Genesis 19, Old Testament
19:1 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, please turn aside 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 town square.” 3 But he pressed 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 to the men at the entrance, 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 any 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 has become 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 down. 10 But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, both small and great, so that they wore themselves out groping for the door.

Here we can see clearly that this people were not only so agressive with the foreigners, in this case the Angels, but they were looking to have sexual intercourse with them. If that would not be the case Why Lot offered his own daughters in exchange to prevent such a perverse Act?


My third source is the letter of St Jude refering to this same issue and explained clearly its sexual nature, more over not mentioning at all the asepects of lack of hospitality or agression that you points to be the real issue here:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

—St. Jude 1:7

If it is not enough for you these explanations let me refer to a fourth source that is quite relevant since comes for the third monoteist religion, the Islam, the religion of the majority of the Abraham descendants, and that consider Lot as a Major Prophet.

According with the Koran the facts were in this way:

And Lot, who said to his nation: 'Do you commit such indecency in a way that no one has preceded you in the worlds? You approach men lustfully instead of women. Truly, you are a nation who exceed (in sin).' The only answer of his nation was: 'Expel them from your village. They are people who keep themselves purified.' We saved him and all his family, except his wife, who was made to remain, and We rained down upon them a rain. So look how was the end of the evildoers. ”
— Qur'an 7:80-84

So this surah of the Koran says clearly that the sin was that this people, men of Sodoma, wanted to have sexual intercourse with the Angels, men of God.

So I am so sorry but there are two many hints here that show that the lack of hospitality, violence or agression toward the Angels that visited and laterly destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, as the consequence of their terrible evil, was only part of their Sin,and Omit a so Huge Aspect of all this situation.

Thanks for your atention,

your friend,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 6/12/2008 by The angel of light]

Originally posted by The angel of light
The Peace of God to all that belong to the light,

Well Neo Christian Mystic, I feel that you are missing some important aspects of the story told in Genesis about Sodom & Gomorrah, points that are crucial to understand that the lack of hospitality that you mention was actually part of the problem, but not the Main issue here that is the cruelty of that people that acted not only with violence but with sexual perversity against messengers of God.

The sexual perversity you refer to in relation to this is only implied, not actually mentioned. But through extrabiblical documentation we today know that the people of certain cities in the area had certain hospitality customs. At the time of Moses Ba'al worship included certain rituals connected to these ancient customs. These customs involved ritual sacrifice of the free will through performing rape against anyone who entered the city. Part of the essense of these rituals would not nessasarily be anal sex, but it was the most common. Forcing people to have sex with animals and objects and worse also occured. What drove them was the power and humiliation of rape, not homosexuality or perversion in first hand.

Both Josephus and Genesis fits into this knowledge.

My third source is the letter of St Jude refering to this same issue and explained clearly its sexual nature, more over not mentioning at all the asepects of lack of hospitality or agression that you points to be the real issue here:

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

—St. Jude 1:7

Here Jude points out that their main sin was fornication, not homosexuality, meaning the Sodomites were mainly hetrophile people who raped whoever they wanted if they entered their city. It has little or nothing to do with homosexuals. The sinners in mention were mostly hetrosexuals performing fornication in the act of raping, for instance, but not nessasarily, other men.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

—St. Jude 1:7

The one that have eyes to see must watch, the one that have ears to listen must listen, ..........

I suggest the readers of this thread to do that and quickly, specially to the ones are living in Sodomy,

Do the right thing now that is still time to repent, otherwise, later could be so late.

God is not punishing anybody just to express love but the ones that are surpassing the Law are going to be punished by the Law itself and they are going to be the only reponsibles for that.

Many people thing wrongly in some parts this country and this epoch of extreme bad understood tolerance and the tyranny of the moral relativisms that anything can be bend or accomodated in the way they like, even the law of God, ........

But that is illusion, They are deceiving only to themselves, since the real God is not an idol of Clay that can be molded one day in this form and the next in other.

Thanks for your atention,

Your friend,

The Angel of lightness

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

no lev 18 22 god was telling lthers not to commit the sins that pagans did in there rituals not telling them not to do the rituals themselves though he did do this later on. and in romans 1 27 he is not saying they left their woman fo r their men they left there desire of women to have men never does it say they were with women before then even though they could have been

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
you are messed up on youre interpretation on scripture because tyou do not realize what love means in our bible we need to know there are many dif words for love in the languages of the bible and that is how we get our understanding that sodom and gommorah , jude, paul etc were talking about homosexuality

There are many different words for love, but none is mentioned in the verses we speak about so it's not me who is confused here. But there are more words for abominable to you know, and in these verses th authors use a word that is connected to ceremonial sins, not moral sins. Men having sex with men is a ceremonial sin in the bible, linking it to pagan practises.

There are 8 verses, 3 in the OT, 5 in the NT all clearly forbidding homosexual practices, (Gen. 19:4 -13) (Lev. 18:22) (Lev 20:13) (1 Cor. 6:9-10) (Rom. 1:26-28) (1 Tim 1:8-10) (Jude 7) (2 Peter 2:6)
I've read some self-deluded justifications and excuses for these verses and I've read people posting the same clearly refuted excuses with the same answers that had already been fully and thoroughly refuted, over and over again.
When I see this I don't even want to waist my time going back and forth, because I do not believe the intended hear any of it. I see a very real and very sad deception within the gay community but “sigh” I will just add this.
One thing is for sure, as much as the gay movement or even the "Christian gay” movement, which (imo) is a paradox, throws out their excuses and when the rebuttals and refutations in turn are presented, what always seems to follow is the "here no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" posture yelling na na na na na, with their hands over there ears. If not that then the other tactic is to bring up a subject completely off topic so they don't have to deal with sound teaching, still! Consider this.
Never! Anywhere is there a homosexual relationship in the bible mentioned that is positive, ever, it is only mentioned in the negative and only mentioned as being expressly forbidden.
Now you can make your excuses and come up with theories all of which have been refuted by sound doctrine, but you can't get around the fact that it is never, ever spoken of in the positive.
Whether homosexuality, adultery, etc. when a person places a sin, any sin above God they will believe anything in order to convince themselves it’s ok so that they may feel secure in that sin and not fear God.
Fear God!

some information on the greek word porneia.

www.studylight.org...

basically homosexuals are not being singled out. ANY sex out of wedlock is against the bible.

Hi,

Well I find easy to see clearly that the origin of the modern Pornography is precisely that aspect of the ancient Greek, Roman or Egyptian civilizations that is related with prostitution in general.

Any thing that is involved in Porno is of course a Sin, since it is sexual activity that is not the consequence of any serious relationship, there is no love or commitment behind them.

The absence of Love or respectful relationship between partners is the sin of moral immorality that the New Testament many times refers, among of course some sexual practices that are characteristic of that style of life like the Sodomy for instance.

The people that are lovers of the Pleasure, that are sexadicts, in other words the ones that have disconnected the Sex of the Love, are living in a sin of sexual immorality.

But to say that any sex outside marrige is sin or at least is this same level of fault is something that is so relative and not very clear. If that would be the case what can we say about the concubines that almost all the masculine relevant figures of the Bible had in the past? David, Solomon, Abraham had all concubines.

You can find a very interesting list of those cases in the Bible at the following link:
www.keyway.ca...

I would like to deeply in this topic but I am opening a separate thread at this same forum for it, since anyway is a discussion that is outside the principal business here that is the Homosexuality and the Bible.

thanks for your atention,

Your friend,

The Angel of lightness




[edit on 7/3/2008 by The angel of light]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
what word is it that they use?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

realize this in ceremonial sins it is not just condemning these things when theyre in a ceremony but the ceremony and the sins individually

its not even neccesarily condemning the actual ceremony just refering to it so that the people know what sins he is banning individually in the bible

again you are mixed up in your doctrine and giving that theory in such a declaritive voice made it sound real so nobody challenged you to that but when that is shattered like just know youre whole theory is shattereds

fornification is any sexual lust or act committed out side of a commitment all adultry is fornificatio but not vice versa fornification is a broader sexual sin category

Homosexuality is only sexy between two hot chicks

reply to post by pause4thought

when jesus said he came to fulfill the law he said that meaning the law will be NULL because it is fulfilled

when a pencil runs out you cant use it anymore b/c its time was FULFILLED

reply to post by The angel of light
polygomy was permitted in the OT but in the NT it was abolished and ddone away with for ministers

every christian is a minister

There are 2 Bible verses i find intriguing,though for very different reasons.

When arguing against homosexuality Sodom is always mentioned.Yet no one mentions Judges chapter 19.This contains an almost identical story to Sodom.There is a mysterious unnamed Levite who stays in the city of Gibeah with his concubine.Whilst there the house they are staying in is targeted by a mob of local men;they too ask that the stranger be brought out so that they may "know him." The lord of the house then,like the oh so righteous Lot,offers his daughter and concubine to the men.They take the concubine,and as 19:25 states,"they abused her all the night until the morning." The concubine ends up being raped to death!

Im guessing this story doesn't get mentioned because the men accepted the woman,and what homosexual man would do that!?!

But both cases show that this is not an act of sexuality.Its rape.Which is a degrading act that installs fear and is committed by those who lust for power and control over another human being.Rape has never been and never will be an act performed only by homosexual men.In fact,most rapist are hetrosexuals who,as mentioned,desire power over another be they a man or a woman.The men of Sodom were out to add gang rape to their list of sins,not gay sex.



The other verse that interests me is;

Matthew 19:12

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves 1eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Particularly the part that says that some have been born eunuchs.
How is that even possible??

Leaving aside the 1 in a million chance that a male might be born without testicles,who exactly is Jesus talking about?

Its a well known fact that many eunuchs known to us from history were homosexuals.And in the middle ages the name was used not just for castrated men,but for homosexuals and men & women of the cloth who chose to lead a chaste life.

The links below give a fuller account of the meaning of this verse.
Many people agree that Jesus was referring to homosexuals.This is also my conclusion after doing some self study.Anti-gay Dr. Gagnon ( Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) even agrees that this verse is talking about gay ppl.Other prominent anti-gay teachers,religious leaders etc have said the same thing.

Just as important is Jesus saying that some are "born that way."
Is this proof that some ppl truly are born gay??
And if its agreed that Jesus was talking about gays and,as the verse shows,Jesus is also ok with that!!
How can homosexuality still be condemned as an abomination??


www.gaychristian101.com...
www.gentlespirit.org...
www.bibletexts.com...






[edit on 8-7-2008 by jakyll]