Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

There is nothing except for the view of the church that brings life to the idea that Jesus was living out some celibate life. He was probably married and had children. If he was not married and was without children, no Pharicee or priest would adress him with being a rabbi. Rabbis must marry, just like Jewish priests. There is much to the idea that the opening of John suggests he was married: He shows his own house to some people, it was the duty of the newly wed husband to build a house during the first year. Secondly, like I have already said they call him Rabbi, a master "naggar", note that Aramaic "naggar" means both teacher and carpenter. Thirdly the mother of Jesus and Jesus himself boss around the servants at the wedding at Kana, this suggests that it was his own confirmation wedding. They namely married twise, or once again after a year or so after the first wedding. During this year the husband built a house (like Jesus had done). And the word Kaleo which is often translated "invited" simply means to have been called, named or ordered, so Jesus was ordered to join the wedding. And if Jesus wasn't married the women following him would have been stoned for being together with an unmarried man. This and much more suggest that Jesus was married like a regular rabbi, not like Paul living in celebacy. Dont call Paul the Lord, for he is a wimp.

I think that it is pointless whether or not some religious book condemns homosexuality or not. Let the religionists believe what they will. The point is that we should not allow the rest of society to be guided and restricted against their will by the imaginary god and un-demonstrable religious quackery of fundamentalist dead-enders.

the point is not gay or straight, it is purification of your intent so that you will find a soulmate, not an excuse to explain what is right or wrong about you based on programming.

Find the truth yourself...

Well the point with this particular discussion, being the op'er, well, what if...
- there was a bible, telling billions of people what to do...
- and what if this book was a translation from a highly advanced language using words most languages the translations are made into simply donæ't have...
- And what if the translations are always wrong... [edit:]The LXX translates it perfectly...[/edit]
- And that it is easy to prove, like I did already in the OP....
- That noone, especially religious fannyticks will never admit the facts presented...

What if you didn't care? The oposite from love isn't hate, but indifference....

[edit on 16/7/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

I don't think Jesus would like the way the bible was written. I am sure he would have distain for modern Christians. Jesus loves homos. The bible should stick to spirituality, not sexuality.

Originally posted by earthman4
I don't think Jesus would like the way the bible was written. I am sure he would have distain for modern Christians. Jesus loves homos. The bible should stick to spirituality, not sexuality.

The bible is the Tannakh and the NT. Jesus loved the Tannakh. What you really wanted to say was: Jesus don lige Pauwl, he adds nothing but division and doubt. Føkk eem. Ee's notting.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


The fact that you feel the need to attack the authority of the Apostle Paul actually provides further evidence that in order to deny that the Bible forbids homosexual practice you have to show contempt for what it says. As such your contributions on this page have gone a long way towards answering the question which you posed in the title of this thread.

Your disdain for the Apostle Paul also reveals a great deal about your attitude to Christ and His message: your attitude - not to mention your language - inadvertently constitutes a warning to true disciples of Christ regarding all of your contributions to this discussion with respect to your authority to claim to provide a Christian perspective.

True disciples of Christ heed what Christ Himself said of Paul, shortly after He had revealed Himself to him.

(The context was that Paul had been doing all in his power to destroy Christians and Christianity. So much so that the Lord knew the disciples would think his conversion was just a ruse to gain their trust. Christ therefore appeared to a man of high standing in the church, Ananias, to put beyond doubt the fact that Paul, this blasphemer and murderer, was a true recipient of His grace and forgiveness, and His chosen instrument for the spreading of the Gospel):

"...this man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before Gentiles, kings, and the sons of Israel..."

Acts 9:15b

If you read through the New Testament you will see that the Apostle Paul faced up to many challenges against His Apostleship, and His response was always that he was a servant of Christ through the grace of Christ, who both forgave his past and ordained that he should be counted among the founding messengers of the Christian faith.

Peter, chief among the apostles, if you wish, said this of Paul's writings:

...our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15b&16

1) Paul's epistles are part of Scripture, God's revelation to man

2) Certain people mess with them, and receive dire warning

3) Paul is held in highest esteem by Christ's true disciples: he is a beloved brother


As to the circumstantial evidence you proffer in order to suggest Christ was married, all I can say is that it is highly indicative of you possessing an agenda. Those who have read your posts can see clearly what that is. The fact that there is no mention of any such thing in the Scriptures apparently means nothing to you.

Rather than debunking all of your bunkum I will simply point out one particular absurdity:

During this year the husband built a house (like Jesus had done).

In reality Jesus Christ performed an itinerant ministry, for which cause he remained dependent on the hospitality of others (as was the general practice in the Holy Land before the introduction of Holiday Inn):

A scribe approached Him and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever You go!" Jesus told him, "Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head."

Gospel of Matthew 8:19&20

As to your claim that it is all translated wrong (or is it just that they happen to have translated the passages you disagree with wrongly) - well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Such claims have been thoroughly dealt with throughout this, and other, related threads (such as here and here).

Repeating the same groundless claims ad infinitum adds nothing to the topic other than to suggest you are fast running out of arguments. I will defend your right to believe whatever you wish. Yet I am convinced the fair-minded reader will have observed that all the arguments presented to deny the Bible condemns homosexual practice have turned out to be contrived.

I therefore submit that recent posters who have vented their disdain for the Bible itself are at least being consistent. Claiming to follow the Bible's teaching while at the same time proclaiming homosexual practice is not immoral in the eyes of the God it reveals has been shown to be disingenuous.

Originally posted by pause4thought
to deny that the Bible forbids homosexual practice

is not only common practice in the whole living world, but also proven to have genetic componds if you like and fairly many of your friends are infact gay, so why get a reason to be paranoid, maybe you are gay ie fun too.

Originally posted by pause4thought
the "authority" of the Apostle Paul

Are you refering to Saulus the man who with his own hands killed Stephanus the first real sacrifice (since Jesus was infact still alive and running an underground movement, far away from Psaul)...?

Love is without sexuality. To place ones "sex" in place of love is wrong.

To say you are straight, gay, or bisexual makes you very wrong. You are placing "Human" words before God. I would not dare to place man's law above Creator's law. That is the sin in itself.

Now with bestiality you have to be reminded of the Nephilism. It was rampant there and one of the ways in which these Nephilim denied God's law was to define God (being gay, being bisexual..and so on).

It was the "Devil" that defined man's sexuality, it was the Devil that defined sin not God.

God also placed "enmity" between the Seed of the Devil and of man. How did he go about doing this? He spread one line from Cain and one line from Abel. Then Abel got killed and then Seth was born. Seth went on to spread God's "Seed" through his offspring. But it also said even after Noah's flood the Nephilim still existed. I think this is where it is present today. Gays, bisexuals, straight people and the like are defining God differently. To define God is to say you have seen God and no man can live and see God.

Yeshua died on a cross. This not only made up for the Sin of Sodom and Gamorah but for the sins of the entire span of humanity. The tree with the apple represented the sins and Yeshua dying on the cross then being sent to hell for all the sins in the world. There is a reason in one of the scriptures it says "Sit at my right hand until I make a footstool of your enemies" Do you get this at all? It wasn't the queers spitting on Yeshua, it wasn't the straight people...it WAS people.

So anyone that denies God will deny the son. That means anyone who believes in their own God, or their own versions of "God" will be punished in the end of time.

If the son of Man were to return he would be in tears. Not because of sin but because the world is so full of itself that it naturally denies the Son of God in trying to judge the world when in fact it is up to the Son of Man to judge the world not the children of God.

reply to post by clg79


clg - Hi. I found your argumentation and logic somewhat disjointed. I can't help wondering if you are reciting the teachings of a fringe group such as the Mormons, as unfortunately much of it isn't at all Biblical.

Rather than trying to untangle your remarks I'll address your concluding remark, which on the surface appears to relate to Scripture:

...it is up to the Son of Man to judge the world not the children of God.

The whole point of the Bible is that God has not left mankind guessing the terms of His judgement. He revealed His Law to Moses in order to define sin (- in direct contradiction of what you said about the Devil defining sin rather than God). He also revealed the sacrificial system which pointed towards Christ as the only remedy for moral guilt before God. Christ was eventually revealed to the World, as foretold. How people can be forgiven as a result of what He did is explained in the New Testament.

Christ Himself said that "few" people benefit from what He did on the Cross, as the way is narrow, involving a lifetime of denying oneself sinful urges and living for Him rather than self - the essence of repentance, which is inseparable from true faith in Christ. Those who say they are His disciples but do not live a life characterised by repentance are deceiving themselves - they will not be saved no matter how strongly they 'believe'. Such 'belief' is not saving faith as defined by the Scriptures.

...The demons also believe - and they shudder.

James 2:19b

Jesus told the Jews who did not believe in Him that Moses' words would judge them, and He told the Apostles that what they taught in terms of the conditions of God's forgiveness would be upheld on the day of judgement. Thus when God's children quote the teaching of the Bible to explain that a person must turn from disobedience to God's moral Law and trust in what Christ achieved on the Cross in order to be forgiven and receive God's Spirit so as to live a new life, they are not, as you suggest, 'judging' people in some sinful way. They are explaining the Good News - that all of us would have been found guilty without Christ but now the door is open for us to follow Him and live His way without any fear of future judgement.

Those who reject turning from disobedience to God and reject faith in God's remedy will receive the due consequences. Pretending it is otherwise is deceit, and warning people of this is certainly not sinful - it is commanded by Christ and the Apostles. The New Testament is packed with exhortations for those who are aware of these things to let others know.

I and several other Christian contributors have repeatedly stated that those who practice homosexual acts are not singled out by God for judgement. Without true repentance and faith all who have engaged in any sex outside male-female marriage are liable to be judged by God for immorality. None of us is without sin - God's standard is perfection - so even not resisting the temptation to lust in the thoughts outside marriage breaks God's commandment.

Pretending homosexual practice is not immorality according to the Bible misrepresents its teaching, encourages immorality and, according to the Book of Jude - part of God's revelation to man - brings God's severe judgement on those who teach such things.

As I have said, every person desperately needs God's forgiveness, not just a particular group. Had someone been trying to argue that adultery is not immorality it would have been necessary to point out that that would be another deception. The Bible, in the same way as with homosexual practice, makes it clear that those whose way of life is characterised by such things do not possess the eternal life promised to God's true children.

It is not that turning from immorality earns forgiveness. Rather the person who has obeyed Christ's call to turn from sin and believe the Good News has received a new nature that leads to a life characterised by purity in sexual matters as in other areas of life.

Pursue... holiness - without it no one will see the Lord.

Hebrews 12:14

At the end of the day the question is this: God has demonstrated His love for sinful people by giving His Son as a sacrifice on our behalf - do we in response possess the genuine faith in this that leads to repentance and love for God and His ways?

Originally posted by clg79
Love is without sexuality. To place ones "sex" in place of love is wrong.

I wrote the OP and I was refering to anal sex between men in a healthy loving relationship, or whatever womankind can do to their "sisters" when they love eachother. Homosexual love doesn't exist. Read the word damnit, ...sexuality?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic



"Lying with mankind as with womankind" forbids only the sexual act.

It does not forbid the love,emotions etc that exist between people of the same gender.



[edit on 25-7-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


H8441
תּעבה תּועבה
tô‛êbah tô‛êbah
to-ay-baw', to-ay-baw'
Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.


They have committed something morally disgusting. The worship of the same sex. The act of homosexuality is therefore comdemned and those who do it are worthy of death, according to God. In Romans, those who did it are reprobates in their mind and are under the wrath of God.

If you are homosexual, it doesn't mean God hates you, just as he does not hate the aldulterer, or the fornicator, but He has made His law and it cannot be changed because we don't like it. He expects us to change.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Fromabove]

reply to post by Fromabove

The act of homosexuality is therefore comdemned and those who do it are worthy of death

The word homosexual is an adjective,it describes behavior,relationships,people etc.It is not an act.Sodomy is an act.Intercourse is an act.

reply to post by jakyll


The word "thief" is also discriptive. Homosexuality in any of it's variations is repulsive to God and is sinful. If there were an exception for homosexual relationships, it would have been stated in the scripture, but it isn't. There is a whole list of other sexual sins as well in the portion of the scripture.

reply to post by Fromabove

If there were an exception for homosexual relationships, it would have been stated in the scripture, but it isn't.

David & Jonathon....

Many people,including scholars,theologians and preachers agree that their relationship was more than just friendship.(and no,the majority do not say this because they too are gay.)

The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships in the Hebrew Testament: e.g. 'ahavah or אהבה (see Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon, Hebrew word #160; Gen. 29:20; 2 Sam. 13:15; Pro. 5:19; Sgs. 2:4-7; Sgs. 3:5-10; Sgs. 5:8)


1 Samuel 18:1-3

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul....3 then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

1 Samuel 20:30

You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.

1 Samuel 20:41-42

And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.

2 Samuel 1:25-26

How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

reply to post by Fromabove


I would like to know which dictionary or lexicon you used here, for it is the first I've seen that refers to To'ebah in relation to moral abominations. For the word is never used to emphesize moral sins. Study the Torah and you will see that the word is only used in relation to ceremonial sins, like eating unclean foods, partisipating in Ba'al rites etc. A moral sin, like lying and stealing, incest and so on use another word, Zimah. Zimah means morally discusting while to'ebah means ceremonial unclean. Period. In the Greek Septuagint or the LXX the translations of these words are consistent and in the Greek dictionaries you find the exact same difference between moral and ceremonial sins.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns homosexual acts as well as any other sexual act outside of marriage. It condemns these acts for Jews (OT)and Christians (NT). It also condemns a lot of other things. Why do people want to focus on just one thing that is condemned in the Bible. This is starting to sound like a broken record. It's not the people, it's the acts.

reply to post by darkelf

Why do people want to focus on just one thing that is condemned in the Bible. This is starting to sound like a broken record. It's not the people, it's the acts.

True.
But some cannot differenciate between the 2.

In many countries gay people are still being attacked in the streets,some escape with their lives,others are not so fortunate.

They can also face life long imprisonment and the death penalty.