Homosexuality is 'not' a sin in the Bible..

[Aaron Lindahl]

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural. Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are ‘not’ sins in and of themselves. To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all. Homosexuals are born in every place around the planet; from the smallest mountain village to the smallest desert village. It is not something ‘learned’ or ‘taught’ to them. It is innately the way they were born, as God created them, and it is ‘natural’ for them to be attracted to, and fall in love with, their own gender, upon reaching puberty, just as it is ‘natural’ for a heterosexual to feel and do the same with the opposite gender upon reaching puberty.

Levitical laws, (mistranslated or not) do not apply to Christians, and so the people who bring up Leviticus to attack gay people with are gravely mistaken, not to mention utterly hypocritical.

Jesus and homosexuality:

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. The conclusion is that Jesus did not consider it a sin.

The options open to a Christian:

A Christian has two options with regard to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament):

1. To accept a favorite (and safely familiar) English translation as accurately containing the words of the original authors. This is a simple and straightforward approach because biblical passages related to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (LGBT) in English Bibles are universally condemning. No further effort is needed.

2. To base the interpretation of these passages on the most ancient available Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. This is as close as we are able to get to the original autograph copies written by the author(s). This option is much more demanding, and made even more difficult because the precise meaning of some of the Greek words are unknown and can only be inferred. Even worse, a convincing case can be made that 1 Timothy was written by a second century forger, many decades after Paul was executed.

If Paul had wanted to condemn homosexual behavior in general, the word for it at the time was paiderasste. What he did, rather than simply use one of the many existing, quite precise Greek terms for aspects of homosexuality (or for homosexuality in general) – words that he would have been quite aware of – is create an entirely new word.

The word "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy:

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been uniquely created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word in the English language that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century.

More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:

• "homosexuals," (NASB);
• "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
• "homosexual offenders," (NIV).

In doing this, they appear to have little respect or attention to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

The author of 1 Timothy also used "arsenokoitai." The KJV translated it similarly:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

Christian theologians generally agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians circa 55 CE. However, they differ on the authorship and date of the three Pastoral Epistles -- 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

• Some scholars believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral epistles during the interval 62 to 64 CE just before his death.

• Many other scholars believe that they were written up to 85 years after Paul's execution, circa 100 to 150 CE by an unknown person who pretended to be Paul.

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual activity between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

• "Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse, rape, unsafe sex, manipulative sex, coercive sex, etc).

• Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st centuryBCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" -- people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

• Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which contains the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai."

• Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

• Abusive pedophiles: Many would consider "malakoi" -- the word preceding "arsenokoitai," in 1 Corinthians -- to refer to a catamite: a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men. Such boys were often slaves, owned by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they were abusive pedophiles or hebephiles. The New American Bible contains a footnote which reads:

"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

In their footnote, the translators recognize that the term refers to abusive male pedophiles, but apparently cannot resist the temptation to attack all homosexuals -- both gays and lesbians, non-abusive and abusive.

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) states that the passage refers to:

"... both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious scholars agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to male pedophiles who are also child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. to consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

Male prostitutes: One scholor has provided an interesting analysis of 1 Corinthians. He noticed a pattern in verse 9 and 10. They are composed up of pairs or triads of related groups of people:

The lawless & disobedient: two near synonyms

The ungodly & sinners: also two near synonyms

The unholy & profane: two synonyms

The murderers of fathers & murderers of mothers & manslayers: three kinds of murderers

Whoremongers & "arsenokoitai" & menstealers

Liars & perjurers etc.: again, two near synonyms.

From the repeated pairs or triads made up of synonyms or near synonyms, one might expect that whoremongers, "malakoi arsenokoitai," and menstealers are interconnected with a common theme -- just like the other pairs and triads in the list.

In the original Greek, the first of the three words is "pornov." An online Greek lexicon notes that this is Strong's Number 4205, and was derived from the Greek word "pernemi" which means to sell. Its meanings are:

A man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire.

A male prostitute.

A man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator.

The second term is "arsenokoitai" which has not been given a Strong Number because it is a made-up word that is almost never found in the Greek language other than in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

The last of the three words is "andrapodistes," the stem of the word andrapodistai. It is Strong's Number 405 which means:

A slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer -- one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them.

If we assume that the three words refer to a common theme, as the other five groups are, then we have to look for some sense which the words have in common. Cannon suggests:

"pornoi" refers to an enslaved male prostitute.

"arsenokoitai" refers to a man who forces sex on an enslaved male prostitute

"andrapodistes" refers to a person who kidnaps and enslaves people.

The common theme is slavery. Cannon suggests a translation: "It is as if Paul were saying, 'male prostitutes, men who sleep with them, and slave dealers who procure them'." That is, all three words deal with slavery. They are unrelated to homosexual behavior in the modern sense of the term i.e. consensual sex between persons of the same sex.

• A boy sex slave

Again, the common theme is slavery.

Translating "arsenokoitai" as a boy who is kept as a sex slave has some support in at least two Bible translations:

As noted above, a footnote in the New American Bible (NAB), interprets "arsenokoitai" as a " boy prostitute."

The Jerusalem Bible translates the triad in 1 Timothy as: "those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men." (Emphasis ours). In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the same word "arsenokoitai" is translated as "catamite."
A possible translation of 1 Timothy 1:10 would be: "...male prostitutes, boys who have sex with men, and slave dealers who enslave them both."

As you may have observed by now, attempts to distort the Bible into a message of hate are badly misguided. The passages in Leviticus and Paul’s three letters specifically apply to people engaging in ritual activity in pagan temples. The references to ‘sodomites’ in Deuteronomy, etc., are a clear error in translation that refer to the same thing. The Sodom and Gomorrah references clearly refer to inhospitality and not to homosexuality at all.

Here’s the most fundamental weakness in such thinking: the Bible does not condemn lesbians. There is a proscription against women wearing men’s clothing, and a letter from Paul ‘mentions’ “women [who] did change the natural use into that which is against nature� – whatever that means – but nothing else. Any translations that apply to ‘homosexuals’ (i.e., including females as well as males) are mis-translations, possibly intentional, certainly political.

So it is entirely within Christ’s teachings to welcome and celebrate the unique way that God created homosexuals, and to encourage them to find another to marry and live a monogamous life with, rather than to condemn and/or cast them out, which almost inevitably leads to despair, and a promiscuous and dangerous lifestyle in an attempt to gain the physical affection and love they were denied.

For a more detailed analysis, please go here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah]

Hi Wootah. If homosexuality is going to be equated as similar to having down-syndrome, or if you aren't aware that we are also part of Nature, and share much of our DNA with fellow living and aware species on this planet, I don't think any further discussion would be useful or beneficial between us.

Thank you,

Hi Aaron,

I think you should use this site for debating. I am not sure what opportunity you have to hear different views.

What do you object to in my reply? What makes one thing natural and the other unnatural?

As I said I understand the emotional pain but I am asking you to disconnect from it rationally debate the issue.

[Aaron Lindahl]

[Replying to Wootah]

Wootah, There is no emotional pain going on here. I simply realize that further discussion between us would not be beneficial since I've said all I have to say to you about the naturality and normality of homosexuality . Please respect that.

Forum Rules:

4. "Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread."

6. "Do not debate in the discussion subforums. They are only for general discussion to get to know one other better."

One, you have gone off topic, topic being 'Homosexuality is not a sin in the Bible'.

Two, this was not posted on the 'debate' forum, but rather.. in the discussion subforum and I feel I know you enough now. I have another post that 'is' in the debate forum if you want to debate it.

Thank you

[Aaron Lindahl]

Having looked at the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuals and having found them wanting, it is appropriate to look at passages that show the exact opposite.

Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth and his first letter to Timothy both include lists; 1 Corinthians include a list of actions that will keep someone from inheriting the Kingdom of God, and 1 Timothy includes a listing of unrighteous people. Neither of these lists claims to be all-inclusive.

On the other hand, Jesus made a list that does appear comprehensive.

Matthew 15:18-20

KJV: (King James Version, 1611): “…those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man…�

MSG (The Message, 1993): “But what comes out of the mouth gets its start in the heart. It’s from the heart that we vomit up evil arguments, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, lies, and cussing. That’s what pollutes.�

Obviously, Jesus did not consider homosexuality important enough to specify in what looks like an all-inclusive list.

Matthew 19 has a more significant message.

In Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus answers questions posed by Pharisees about divorce, leading to a question whether it is not perhaps better not to marry. He responds to it with a short discussion in Matthew 19:12 that the King James Version (1611) translates this way:

“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 eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.�

Castrated males are not the only people included in the term ‘eunuch’. There can hardly be a question that gays fall into the eunuch definition given by Christ, and Isaiah 56:4-5 offers a particularly hopeful prospect for those who keep the covenant with God.

It is highly rational to interpret the third type of eunuch that Jesus mentions as “those who choose to refrain from marriage with women because doing so would be contrary to their God-created nature and therefore dishonest.�

In the ancient world, eunuchs were widely associated with homosexuality. Here a self-avowed eunuch is welcomed in to the early church without any concerns about his sexual orientation. He was welcomed on the same basis as other people – his faith in Jesus Christ.

Once people who have prejudice against gays find out someone is gay, it is as if that person has a neon sign on his or her forehead, flashing, “Gay! Gay! Gay!� But God sees people differently, looking past incidental labels and seeing into the core of each being. As the Apostle Peter says, “God shows no partiality.� (Acts 10:34)

The grace of God is available to gay people on the same basis as all other humans.

That is what the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is all about. Acts 8:26-40

The author of Acts sought to write a well-researched history of the acts of the apostles following the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven. In chapter eight of that book, we find Philip heading a great evangelistic campaign in Samaria. The story tells us that along with “proclaiming the Messiah,� (8:4) Philip was healing people and casting out demons. His efforts were going so well, and so many were coming to faith, “there was great joy in that city.� (8:8) However, in the midst of this great revival, the Holy Spirit told Philip to “get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.� (8:26) This road was in the wilderness.

This seems like a strange command: Leave the great revival among the Samaritans, and go out into the wilderness. But Philip did what God asked. Then the story gets even stranger. Out in the wilderness, Philip finds a lone Ethiopian eunuch traveling south from Jerusalem. The author tells us the man was sitting in his chariot, reading from Isaiah. Having just been to Jerusalem to worship, he was now headed home.

It is this nameless man who makes the story so important to gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians, and the acceptance of them. So, let us look more closely at the identity of the Ethiopian eunuch. At the time of the writing of Acts, the term Ethiopian was used to describe people from Nubia, south of Egypt. So, we know from this description that he was probably a black African. But that still leaves us with the question, “What is a eunuch?�

The Greek word used in Acts is 'eunouchos', which means literally “guardian or keeper of the couch.� (See note 1.) The term refers to those who were placed in positions of highest trust in royal palaces and wealthy households. Eunuchs served and guarded the women in these households. Because of their intimate access to the royal courts, eunuchs often rose to senior government positions. In this story, the Ethiopian eunuch was Treasurer to the Queen of Ethiopia. (8:27)

Not just anyone was permitted to serve as a eunuch. Given their intimate access to the women of the household, they had to be men who could be trusted not to have affairs with (or force themselves upon) the women — because to do so would cloud the line of succession to the throne and confuse inheritance rights. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ideal candidate for the position of eunuch would be someone known for his disinterest in women. Although the ancients did not have the same clear concept of heterosexual and homosexual that we do today, people were put together in the same way then as now. There were men then (as now) who had a reputation for being disinterested in women as objects of sexual attraction. They would make the ideal eunuch.

Of course, it was not always possible to find someone like this. In those situations, or in situations where the master wanted to be extra cautious, eunuchs were often castrated, i.e., their testicles were removed so they would be incapable of fathering children. But it would be historically inaccurate to picture eunuchs as a bunch of straight men who were castrated. Ancient literature indicates that various types of eunuchs were recognized. There were “man-made eunuchs,� meaning those who had been castrated. But there are also references to so-called “natural� or “born� eunuchs. This category also included males who from childhood seemed incapable of or disinterested in intercourse with women.

It is clear from the ancient literature that eunuchs as a class had a reputation for being attracted sexually to men, rather than women. For example, an ancient Summarian myth about the creation of eunuchs says they “do not satisfy the lap of women.� They were specifically created, the myth says, because they can resist the wiles of women.- Inanna’s Descent into the Nether World, (Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 4, # 4, 1950), page 200.

The book of Sirach, found in the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible, says that embracing a girl makes a eunuch groan. (Sirach 30:20) The Roman playwright Juvenal (who lived near the time of Christ) stated, “When a soft eunuch takes to matrimony. . . it is hard not to write a satire.�

Lucian, a Greek satirist who lived about one hundred years after Christ, compares a eunuch with a concubine to a deaf man with a flute, a bald man with a comb, and a blind man with a mirror. In other words, a eunuch has as much need for a woman as a fish has for a bicycle.

With this historical background, we can now return to the story in Acts 8 about the Ethiopian eunuch. The point we have been leading up to is this: When the Ethiopian introduced himself to Philip as a eunuch, Philip would have immediately known he was dealing with a man who was part of a class commonly associated with homosexual desire.

Acts 8:32-33 tells us the Ethiopian eunuch was reading from Isaiah 53:7-8. This passage was seen by early Christians as a prophecy about Jesus. The whole chapter tells about the suffering of God’s anointed one. Verse 3 says, “He was despised and rejected by others.� Verse 7 says, “He was oppressed and he was afflicted.�

So, in Jerusalem, the Ethiopian eunuch would have been assured by the people of God that he could not become one of them. He would have been despised and rejected, cut off from God’s grace by the religious leaders.

Perhaps someone among his friends had furtively told him about Isaiah 56:3-5, which promises eunuchs who keep God’s commandments that someday they will receive a house, a monument, and a name within God’s walls. Perhaps, like gay, lesbian, and bisexual Christians today, he had gone to his religious leaders pointing to the Scriptures which affirmed him, hoping he might somehow be accepted. But instead, he had been clobbered once again with Deuteronomy 23:1. A eunuch “may not enter the assembly of God’s people!� And so he had taken his precious scroll of Isaiah and begun his journey home, reading about another of God’s children who had been despised, rejected, and cut off.

It was at this point Philip, guided by the Holy Spirit, happened along and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?� The Ethiopian eunuch, still seeking a religious authority figure, answered “How can I unless someone guides me?� (8:31)

So, Philip started with this Scripture and “proclaimed to him the good news of Jesus.� (8:35) Then they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?� Philip’s answer should be astonishing to anyone who still holds a prejudice against gay, lesbian, and bisexual believers.

Philip responded, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.�

Philip did not say, “Let’s talk about Deuteronomy 23:1.� He also did not say, “I realize since you’re a eunuch that you may desire men; can you promise me you’ll never have a sexual relationship with a man?� Instead, operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.� We have no way of knowing whether the Ethiopian eunuch was in fact gay. But we do know he was part of a class of people commonly associated with homosexuality and that this fact was completely irrelevant to whether he could become a Christian.

The implications of this story are profound for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and for the acceptance of them by the church.

This story illustrates that what matters is how we relate to Jesus — a point made over and over again in the New Testament, but which many modern Christians refuse to apply consistently. Scripture is not what keeps them from accepting their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters; only prejudice does. For if there were some authentic scriptural basis for excluding the Ethiopian eunuch because of the real possibility he was homosexual, we can be sure that Philip, a man who followed God even when God led him into the wilderness, would have been quick to pursue it.

For more detailed analysis, please click here: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/b ... hurch.html

[Aaron Lindahl]

Homosexual love is just as capable of virtue and vice as heterosexual love. Excluding that love from institutional recognition is prejudicial and deceptive. It reinforces irrational, biological disgusts of some heterosexuals that reflect more their own sexuality and social conditioning than any moral truth, and reinforces a crude fear of otherness barely any different than the primal fears of foreigners, other races, or menstrual blood.

The net sum gains of gay marriage: More marriages, more commitment, fidelity, love, self-sacrifice, responsibility among homosexuals. More stable homes for children. Less gays in sexually doomed marriages to straights with the concomitant divorces. No exclusion of citizens based on morally irrelevant factors from participating in cultural institutions. No “separate but equal� standards that make for second class citizens. Love and commitment are more clearly defined as the core of marriage rather than degrading economics or social transaction concerns that disregard individual happiness.

All of this is increase in freedom for all to pursue their own happiness. It’s a further strike against slavery to our overly-ingrained tendencies of our species to be traditionalistic and fearful of Otherness. It’s a teaching instrument for us to overcome our irrational disgusts and learn to separate knee jerk aversions from moral repulsion, which is an increase in our abilities to assess issues fairly, rationally, and only according to relevant distinctions. It means less promiscuity (if decreasing promiscuity is a good you want), decreasing the chances of sexual diseases and emotional and relational instability. Mainstreaming gays, makes them happier, cuts down on their suicides, gives young people who are gay more confidence that they can be accepted for who they are in the larger culture and that they can pursue their dreams and consummate their loves just as well as if they were straight.

Many a homophobic religious person has infamously claimed that when it comes to gays he “loves the sinner but hates the sin� and many a defender of the full dignity and ethical lives of gay people has judged such a compromised offer of love inadequate (if not insincere).

To gay people, who understand their homosexuality as a key part of their very psycho-sexual identity—which is as fundamental to their self-conception as heterosexuality is to straight people—their homosexuality is not just a “behavior� but a rather fundamental expression of themselves with far reaching consequences for their entire lives.

Of course, that is not to say that being gay is the only important, identity-forming thing in their lives—anymore than a heterosexual person’s straightness is the only thing in her life which contributes in an essential way to her identity. Gay people want and deserve both to not be belittled by being reduced to being only their sexuality as though they were not also full people in the whole other range of ways that straight people are, and at the same time they want and deserve not to have their sexuality treated like just an unusual kinky fetish, a dirty secret, or an embarrassing “unnatural�, “disordered� urge which they “struggle to control�.

In telling someone they are gay, they are not revealing a quirky bedroom desire that’s impolite to mention in casual conversation, and to treat them like that’s what they are doing demeans their entire love orientation, and disrespects some of the most important relationships and desires for love and companionship in their lives. This is why the homophobic cop out that goes, “I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, I just do not want to know about it� is so insulting to gays. Gays are not telling people about their sex lives when they tell them about their sexual orientation. They are telling them about a much deeper and much more central part of their identity—again, something as important to them as being straight is to a straight person.

How can one hate a fundamental, non-malevolent, harmless, loving, and psychologically orienting, part of a person while claiming that they simultaneously love that person. Do they even grasp what the word love means? Do they really have a good grasp on what either accepting or, minimally, respecting someone even means? Loving, or, at least, accepting and honoring gays as equal, means not hating a central part of their identities..

Matthew 7:1-5

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Luke 6:37

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Mark 12:31

"The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

Luke 6:31

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Romans 12:9

"Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

1 Peter 4:8

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."

Proverbs 10:12

"Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs."

The Pharisees, a popular Jewish renewal movement in the time of Jesus, accepted into their fellowship only men who adopted priestly purity laws in daily life. The Pharisees looked down upon the majority of the Jews as “the people of the land,� the un-spiritual masses, as many people do today upon gay people. The Essenes, who gathered in Qumran near the Dead Sea, took exclusion to a level far beyond the Pharisaic standard. Entrance into the Essene community required, not only that one be a male who practiced priestly purity, but virtual separation from all who were not part of their monastic community. Not only were outsiders unwelcome in the Essene fellowship, but also they had nothing to look forward to from the Lord other than fiery judgment.

When contrasted to the exclusionary practices of the Pharisees and the Essenes, Jesus’ openness to common people – even those who were ritually unclean or regarded as sinners – stands out starkly.

As Jesus said in John 8:7: "..Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

These teachings of love, non-judgement, and acceptance is what marks Christians apart from our modern day equivalent of the Pharisees.

[puddleglum]

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural.

Why? The differences between male and female anatomy show that God intended for sex to be between a man and a woman. This should be obvious to anyone, regardless of his religion or lack of religion.

Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are ‘not’ sins in and of themselves. To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all.

This is half true. It is wrong to condemn anyone for the way he was born and in fact the Bible doesn't do this. It is only homosexual acts that are condemned.

After God created Adam and Eve he established a practice called marriage, a permanent union between a man and a woman, and he restricted sexual practice to this union. Any sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other, whether they are a man and a woman or two members of the same sex, is a sin. Anyone who sincerely cares about the welfare of gay people should be warning them against sin rather than encouraging it. I have written about this subject in more detail here:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

[Aaron Lindahl]

It goes against all common sense and reason to believe homosexuals are unnatural.

Why? The differences between male and female anatomy show that God intended for sex to be between a man and a woman. This should be obvious to anyone, regardless of his religion or lack of religion.

Homosexuality, homosexual desire, and homosexual sex are ‘not’ sins in and of themselves. To condemn or treat the way a person was born as a 'sin' is the gravest sin of all.

This is half true. It is wrong to condemn anyone for the way he was born and in fact the Bible doesn't do this. It is only homosexual acts that are condemned.

After God created Adam and Eve he established a practice called marriage, a permanent union between a man and a woman, and he restricted sexual practice to this union. Any sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other, whether they are a man and a woman or two members of the same sex, is a sin. Anyone who sincerely cares about the welfare of gay people should be warning them against sin rather than encouraging it. I have written about this subject in more detail here:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -of-light/

Hi Theophilus,

I have to disagree. Homosexuality is entirely natural, just as God created it. Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,500 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.

However, in the latest study it was found that the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

On the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed. Dolphins form life-long same-sex pairs for life, while heterosexual encounters are fleeting.


I want to be clear that I'm not promoting polygamy, but rather, only providing Biblical examples of marriages that do not fall into the above definition of when you state that God created marriage as only one man and one woman. Your presumption on this matter is false:

As often as polygamy is recorded in Scripture, it is quite amazing how the Lord never condemns the practice. Both wicked men and righteous men were polygamous, and the Lord called neither to repent of it.

Lamech practiced polygyny (Genesis 4:19). Abraham likewise had more than one wife (Genesis 16:3-4; 25:6 "concubines"). Nahor, Abraham's brother, had both a wife and a concubine (Genesis 11:29; 22:20-24). Jacob was tricked into polygamy (Genesis 29:20-30), yet later he received two additional wives making a grand total of four wives (Genesis 30:4, 9). Esau took on a third wife hoping it might please his father Isaac (Genesis 28:6-9). Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives (1 Chronicles 4:5). Michael, Obadiah, Joel, Ishiah, and those with them "had many wives" (1 Chronicles 7:3-4). Shaharaim had at least four wives, two of which he "sent away" (1 Chronicles 8:8-11). Caleb had two wives (1 Chronicles 2:18) and two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46, 48). Gideon had many wives (Judges 8:30). Elkanah is recorded as having two wives, one of which was the godly woman Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 8-2:10).

David, "a man after God's own heart"(1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (1 Chronicles 1:1-9; 2 Samuel 6:23; 20:3). Solomon, who breached both Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and 17:14-17, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-6). Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), and sought many wives for his sons (1 Chronicles 11:23). Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). Jehoram had wives who were taken captive (2 Chronicles 21:17). Jehoiada the priest gave king Joash two wives (2 Chronicles 24:1-3), and Jehoiachin had more than one wife (2 Kings 24:15). Polygamy is mentioned several times over in the Bible and never once is polygyny condemned.

Polygamy was governed, not forbidden:

Not only is polygamy not forbidden, but God actually gave laws concerning its practice. For example, in Deuteronomy 21 the Lord gave Moses a law regarding a man who had two wives.

If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

This law does not condemn the man who has two wives. It simply governs how he deals with the offspring.

Immediately before this passage, we find Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall put off the cloths of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

Here the Lord makes no mention as to whether "you" are already married or not. He simply gives the Israelites the permission to marry a captive girl and how to deal with her. This law applies to either a single man or a married man, and in its application of a married man, the Lord is giving permission for polygamy. In fact, this passage rests in that very context, because the very next statement after verse 14 is, "If a man has two wives, . . ." (Deuteronomy 21:15).

Another interesting law in the light of polygamy is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, "My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother." Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, "I do not want to take her," then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, "So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house." And his name shall be called in Israel, "The house of him who had his sandal removed."

This passage requires the living brother to marry his brother's wife, and there is absolutely no statement whatsoever in regards to the living brother's marital status. He could be single, or he could already be married. The passage says nothing either way. All that is said is,

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.

If the living brother was already married, then we have here a command from God for a man to have a polygamous relationship. If the living brother was already married, in order to obey the Lord, the man would be required to have more than one wife. If he refused to do so, he would be spit in the face and bear reproach (Deuteronomy 25:9-10).

Similarly, if a married man were to have sex with a virgin who was not betrothed, he would be required to marry her, and thus end up with another wife.

If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17; see also Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Here again there is no specification on whether the man is married or not. Therefore, this law would apply to both a single or married man.

Another law regarding polygamy can be found in Leviticus 18:18. Here the Lord forbids, not polygamy, but rather the taking on of a rival sister while the other is still alive.

Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.

Finally, there is one passage in Deuteronomy that some may think condemns polygamy, but, the truth of the matter is, it actually allows it. For the king, Deuteronomy 17:14-17 places a very general limit to the practice of polygamy.

When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, "I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me," you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, "You shall not return that way again." Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

This law is given for the king of the land. There is no such law concerning the common Israelite. In other words, if a rich Israelite were to multiply wives for himself, he would not be breaching this law or any other command from God, because no such command exists. This law does not apply to everyone. It only applies to the king.

Now, does the law say the king cannot have more than one wife? No, it does not. In fact, please note there are three other things the king is not to "multiply for himself," horses, silver, and gold. Could he have a few horses? Certainly, David had at least 100 horses (2 Samuel 8:4), and in this, he did not disobey God (1 Kings 15:5). Could a king have some silver and gold? Indeed, David had silver and gold (2 Samuel 12:30; 24:24), and he did not disobey God (1 Kings 15:5). Likewise, could a king have a few wives? Yes he could. David had at least 8 wives and 10 concubines (2 Samuel 3:14; 15:16; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9), and was not disobedient against the Lord in doing so; as 1 Kings 15:5 says,

David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

As for a king who breached Deuteronomy 17:17, Solomon is the classic example. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Yet, even though Solomon obviously multiplied wives to himself, the Lord condemns Solomon, in particular, for his marriage of foreign women (1 Kings 11:1-2; Deuteronomy 7:1-4) and the resultant idolatry (1 Kings 11:4). God mentions Solomon's multiple wives (1 Kings 11:3), but the focus of God's anger is upon Solomon allowing himself to be seduced by his wives (1 Kings 11:9-10). The focus is not upon how many wives he possessed, but rather upon the marriage of foreign women and how they seduced him into idolatry.

Interesting to note in this polygamous context is the statement about David in 1 Kings 11:6.

Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not fully follow the Lord, as did his father David.

Even though David had at least 8 wives and ten concubines, it still says that David fully followed the Lord.

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 16 by Aaron Lindahl]

People in the Bible didn't always follow God's commands regarding marriage but that doesn't change the fact that it is intended to be a relationship between only one man and one woman. And this is irrelevant to the main point of this thread, the claim that homosexuality is natural. And the fact that some animals practice homosexuality doesn't mean that humans are allowed to do so. Our moral standards are based on what God has commanded, not on the behavior of animals.

[Aaron Lindahl]

[Replying to post 16 by Aaron Lindahl]

People in the Bible didn't always follow God's commands regarding marriage but that doesn't change the fact that it is intended to be a relationship between only one man and one woman. And this is irrelevant to the main point of this thread, the claim that homosexuality is natural. And the fact that some animals practice homosexuality doesn't mean that humans are allowed to do so. Our moral standards are based on what God has commanded, not on the behavior of animals.

If it's irrelevant to this thread, then why did you bring up the subject?

I'm sorry, but you are wrong on both points.

Sometimes, people are indeed honest enough to admit that the Bible really does not prohibit polygamy (polygyny). However, as a hedge against that admission, such ones may then resort to saying one of the following assertions:

• "Yes, but God never condoned polygamy."

• "Yes, God allowed it, but He was against polygamy."

• "Polygamy was only man's idea, not God's".

• "Yes, but God never approved of polygamy."

The passage involving 2 Samuel 12:8 rather clearly reveals otherwise:

“I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!� -2 Samuel 12:8.

The context of the verse is that of God, speaking through a prophet (Nathan), calling out David for David's sin of taking another man's wife (Bathsheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite), which is adultery indeed, and for setting up the death of Uriah the Hittite to try to hide David's sin.

Also, at the point in time of this situation, David had already been married to at least seven known-named wives. (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:2-5.)

In verse 12 God was not condemning David for all his wives. In fact, verse 12 shows God Himself actually saying that HE was the One Who had GIVEN David His wives.

If God was against David's polygamy, He certainly would not have said that He had GIVEN David his wives.

But the LORD did not stop there. Verse 12 shows that the Lord took it even one step further than that. The LORD God went on further to say that if David had wanted more wives, the Lord Himself said that He would have given David even more.

Another Biblical example of polygamy being approved by God: "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." -Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s).

As for homosexuality being unnatural, you're simply denying scientific and biological reality in how God created us and all species.

Homosexual behavior is often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.

It's clear same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and thousands of other species.

Same-sex behaviors – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations.


For further analysis, please refer here: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/1944731

[puddleglum]

[Replying to post 16 by Aaron Lindahl]

People in the Bible didn't always follow God's commands regarding marriage but that doesn't change the fact that it is intended to be a relationship between only one man and one woman. And this is irrelevant to the main point of this thread, the claim that homosexuality is natural. And the fact that some animals practice homosexuality doesn't mean that humans are allowed to do so. Our moral standards are based on what God has commanded, not on the behavior of animals.

If it's irrelevant to this thread, then why did you bring up the subject?

You were the one who brought it up. I was merely responding to what you said.