Gay Christian?

[GilbertoMartins]

This is a really good topic to be discussed. There cannot be "I guess this or that" right now: God is the answer.

Why/How it started
If we want to understand why one is homosexual, we should go this way. Or even to understand how these things start working, if we want to be alert specifically to this situation (in this case, homosexualism). Maybe it is something based on brain secrets, or something that human science has no answer to. That's why I think I am not prepared to answer this, and neither are some scientific theories. They may be on the right way, but as far as I know, they are only theories, cannot help.

The actual fact
We should consider it as a sin or not? first, what is a sin? In Wikipedia I found that "sin is the concept of acts that violate a moral rule". I AllAboutGod, " Often it seems as if sin is simply the violation of any of God's laws, including the Ten Commandments". Paul states that we all have sinned (Romans 3:23), without listing any kind of sin. The fact is: no matter which was/is the sin, we are sinners.

It has been a problem (at least to me) to identify what is and what is not a sin. The case is here is homosexuality. God cannot do something, and after say to everybody "I haven't done this", because He does not lie. So, if he prepared one man to love another man as his wife/lover/girlfriend/spouse, or the same to a woman, why would He deny this act afterwards (Lev 18:22 - "You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing."; Rom 1:27 - "And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing" - Basic English 1965). Here I am not considering any opinion, but the Bible only. Note also the amount of time between both moments.

If God rejects the act, and even order Jews and Christians not to proceed that way, I can affirm, with no doubt: God does not prepared mankind for homosexualism. And if God Clearly stated "DO NOT", that is what He means: He does not want us to do that. "That" is here for homosexualism, or any other thing we can (to be able) do, but we shouldn't. That make me think on how Paul recommended us in 1 Co. 10:23: We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good.

This recommendation is really adequate: I can be a homosexual, If I want (We are free to do all things). Personally, I see no reason for this. I think women are beautiful, and men will NEVER beat this ( ). But but suppose I want to do this, being a Christian (before or after being gay): for the scriptures, "not all things are for the common good".

So, independent of when it started, it it is something one wants to do. Being a Christian, or one who knows about the truth ("And you will have knowledge of what is true, and that will make you free. Jo 8:32), he will understand that self-control is a consequence of the presence and work of God's Holy Ghost (But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, gentle behaviour, control over desires: against such there is no law. Gal 5:22-23). The verse 24 is even more incisive: And those who are Christ's have put to death on the cross the flesh with its passions and its evil desires..

As I can see here, homosexualism may (and need to be) defeated. It is not written that it is easy, but faith is the key to overcome difficult problems: we believe God can do all things (Luke 1:37). Thus, we will always love help the sinner, but always hating the sin.

I hope I could help, somehow.

 

[trev82]

i think its a sin and the Holy bible says so

 

[Musilany]

Amen GilbertoMartins...

 

[panda_girl]

i read a few of the posts, and i was just getting annoyed with some of the peopel, so i stopped... i had a thread a week ago similar to this, 'cause one of co-workers is gay, and he's actually become a good friend of mine

i don't really think there could be such a thing as a "gay christian" though, because to be a christian is to live a Christ-like (which is the definition of christian) and since being homosexual is not viewed as an edifying lifestyle by God therefore would not be a Christ-like lifestyle... i know we're not all perfect and what not, which is why it's christ-LIKE and not, "Live-exactly-like-christ-did lifestyle"

now, these people you say have told you they've felt comforted by God about who they are, could just be comfortable with who they are themselves, and not really listening for God's guidence

 

[Bytez8888]

I have a lot to say about this subject.

First, I have a background in psychology, and research is coming out that SOMETIMES homosexuality is biologically deteremined. For example, a pregnant woman who is under a lot of stress during her pregnancy will have waves of testosterone washing over the baby--now if that baby is a girl, she is more likely to be born with gender identity disorder. Her choice? I think not. A result of sin? Absolutely! Also, homosexuality runs in families--evidence to the "nature" side of the controversy. Still, though, and deviation from perfection is not part of God's plan, and he certainly is not pleased with gay-bashing, discrimination, isolation, low self-esteem, etc. etc. and all the other difficulties that result from homosexuality.

On the other hand, our sex-laden culture has desensitized people to sex and homosexuality, and more and more young people are "experimenting" with homosexual behavior and deciding that they are "gay" or "bi". This is a problem with our cultural media.

The reality is that one verse is repeated 5 times in the Bible. It is "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife. And they will become one flesh." That is where God draws the line. When we start pushing the line we end up with promiscuous sex, orgies, pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, beastiality, etc. etc. etc. THIS IS WHERE GOD DRAWS THE LINE, AND HE DRAWS IT THERE FOR GOOD REASON!!!

With that said... I do not take it upon myself to preach this message to homosexuals. (I am only posting it here because I think my perspective is a little different than the "standard" answer, and I thought you all might be interested in my take.) The message I preach to homosexuals, liars, cheaters, murders, rapists, drug addicts and sinners of all kinds is that Christ LOVES them and wants desperately to have a relationship with them!!! Any person who does not know Christ must be told this message first and foremost: Christ died for you because he loves you!

As for a person being a "gay" christian, I am thrilled that a gay person feels courageous enough to face the "lions" in church who can be hateful and persecutory towards them--and I know there are many Personally I don't take it upon myself to preach to them about the "wrongness" of their lifestyle UNLESS they are acting promiscuously and not in the manner befitting to a Christian. If they are in a "healthy" relationship with a same-sex partner, I will leave it to God to convict their heart. Maybe we will have conversations about it, but I do not take it upon myself to do the work of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for reading all this. Be blessed

Amen. I was inspired reading this because it was logical, thoughtful, honest and straight to the point. I commend Wonderland for that wonderful post. My personal opinion is i have no right to preach to people things i do not fully understand. I will never cast a stone at someone or codemn them for any sin more than another. Its awesome that so many people are passionate about their beleifs and ideas, but when someone calls themselves a christian than they shouldent be hurting others with their words.

The two most important commandments is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. The second is to love your neighbor as yourself. For me, loving my neighbor is just that. I love them with my all my heart, i treat them as i would treat my own heart. In my heart with very little else to support my theory, I dont think God designed us to be homsexuals, but i also know God has a plan and he loves us dearly.

So to answer the question of this thread, yes there can be such a thing as a Gay christian. Who like all christians, struggle with sin and struggle with a wandering heart. But unlike other chrsitians, one who is gay must face the adversity and stigma attatched to the title "homosexual." I for one am not going to try to make it harder for them to feel loved by their neighbors.

Zach

 

[Musilany]

its no just a belief or an opinion its cleary stated in the bible....My goodness I am getting really fustrated with this, how can so many "christians" make excuses to sin like this? its nnot just fustrating, its very scarytoo, what is wrong with this generation????I am not talking about the gay people I am talking about the the christians that thinks homosexualism is okay....

And to tell them the truth is best way to show them that we love them, of course we should sensitive and everything but never make excuses to their behavior to make them feel better...God never changes..He never said that if you would live for Him, you would not have trouble, but the opposite and people will hate you because of the truth...

You can't change God's law to make people feel better, or feel that they are loved....They should feel that by the way you talk to them and of course by knowing what Jesus did for them on the cross...

Please stop making excuses....Homosexualism is abomination in God's eyes....

 

[Speeder]

After I saw that question, I went to research it, many times... DEEP research, talked with all sorts of people, including people that could translate from hebrew, greek and explain to me what the original passage meant.

First, it is quite obvious, that Yahweh sees "men in bed with men" is a ABOMINATION.

But what most people don't notice, is that in these passages, only male homosexualism is criticized.


WHAT?


Yes, what I just said... When I saw it first, I was shocked too...

So, let's see the verses again:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

The leviticus passages, are clear, from everyone that I talked and researched, it is clearly written: MEN WITH MEN, IS A SIN. And I REALLY mean, MEN (not human, but MEN, male human).

The Corinthians passages, if you have 10 versions of bible in your home, you will see it written in 10 diffrent ways... But if you compare all them, you will see that all them have the words "homosexual, sodomite, effeminate" or something like that...

I went to see the meaning of this (specially, because "sodomy" is a word that changes constantly of meaning).

The words are: Malakos, and Arsenokoites.
Malakos, plainly means: Male, that gives himself to other male.

The usual context of this word, was describing a Greek and Roman practice, of young boys, having submissive relations with adult males, that taught them, but also had sex with them, these adult males, are called by the greek word, Pederast. So, pederasty, is a adult male, that likes a boy.
But it is not written "pederasty" on the passage, because malakos don't meant only boys, but any male giving himself to other male.

Then we get to the word "Arsenokoites"

But why, we have homosexualism listed TWICE, someone would ask?

It is because, a person may say that he is not "malakos", because he is not the receiving partner...
Thus, we get following the word "malakos", the word "arsenokoites"

arsenokoites, is a neologism, some scholars believe that it was Paul invention, some think that he learned somewhere else... Anyway, arsenokoites, is two words summed: "Arsen" and "Koites".
Arsen, means: Human male.
Koites, mean: Sex. (this is why, the contraceptive method of interrupting sex, is called "coitus interruptus")

So, the passage says that: Male that give himself to other male, is a sinner. Male that uses other male, is a sinner too. So noone of those "escape".


But what about females? Actually, the Bible says nothing about female homosexualism, like always, there are passages that some interpret as examples of that, others, interpret as something else... But the Bible on general, says nothing about it.

This may mean that lesbianism is allowed? Yes.
But this mean, that girls can go around having fun wildly with several others? Probably, no. (I cannot say for certain, the bible is not clear on this...)

But, should still a women marry a men? YES. God made women, and men, for that.

What all this mean? Well, I have my own ideas, but I cannot say much about it, because the Bible is not clear about it...




Now, notice again: God abominates MEN THAT GET IN BED WITH MEN. Also, Paul states that male RECEIVING AND ACTIVE partners are sinful. If you notice, this is only about the ACTION. So, Yahweh LOVES men that desire men. But Yahweh HATES when they actually have sex with each other. With this, I shall say, that gays are WELCOME to be Christians, they are to be loved, and Yahweh loves them, but they should refrain from doing sex with other gays, because this is sinful. If they can refrain from doing that, it is fine.

 

[Lyndies]

After I saw that question, I went to research it, many times... DEEP research, talked with all sorts of people, including people that could translate from hebrew, greek and explain to me what the original passage meant.

First, it is quite obvious, that Yahweh sees "men in bed with men" is a ABOMINATION.

But what most people don't notice, is that in these passages, only male homosexualism is criticized.


WHAT?


Yes, what I just said... When I saw it first, I was shocked too...

So, let's see the verses again:

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

“…Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion ers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

The leviticus passages, are clear, from everyone that I talked and researched, it is clearly written: MEN WITH MEN, IS A SIN. And I REALLY mean, MEN (not human, but MEN, male human).

The Corinthians passages, if you have 10 versions of bible in your home, you will see it written in 10 diffrent ways... But if you compare all them, you will see that all them have the words "homosexual, sodomite, effeminate" or something like that...

I went to see the meaning of this (specially, because "sodomy" is a word that changes constantly of meaning).

The words are: Malakos, and Arsenokoites.
Malakos, plainly means: Male, that gives himself to other male.

The usual context of this word, was describing a Greek and Roman practice, of young boys, having submissive relations with adult males, that taught them, but also had sex with them, these adult males, are called by the greek word, Pederast. So, pederasty, is a adult male, that likes a boy.
But it is not written "pederasty" on the passage, because malakos don't meant only boys, but any male giving himself to other male.

Then we get to the word "Arsenokoites"

But why, we have homosexualism listed TWICE, someone would ask?

It is because, a person may say that he is not "malakos", because he is not the receiving partner...
Thus, we get following the word "malakos", the word "arsenokoites"

arsenokoites, is a neologism, some scholars believe that it was Paul invention, some think that he learned somewhere else... Anyway, arsenokoites, is two words summed: "Arsen" and "Koites".
Arsen, means: Human male.
Koites, mean: Sex. (this is why, the contraceptive method of interrupting sex, is called "coitus interruptus")

So, the passage says that: Male that give himself to other male, is a sinner. Male that uses other male, is a sinner too. So noone of those "escape".


But what about females? Actually, the Bible says nothing about female homosexualism, like always, there are passages that some interpret as examples of that, others, interpret as something else... But the Bible on general, says nothing about it.

This may mean that lesbianism is allowed? Yes.
But this mean, that girls can go around having fun wildly with several others? Probably, no. (I cannot say for certain, the bible is not clear on this...)

But, should still a women marry a men? YES. God made women, and men, for that.

What all this mean? Well, I have my own ideas, but I cannot say much about it, because the Bible is not clear about it...




Now, notice again: God abominates MEN THAT GET IN BED WITH MEN. Also, Paul states that male RECEIVING AND ACTIVE partners are sinful. If you notice, this is only about the ACTION. So, Yahweh LOVES men that desire men. But Yahweh HATES when they actually have sex with each other. With this, I shall say, that gays are WELCOME to be Christians, they are to be loved, and Yahweh loves them, but they should refrain from doing sex with other gays, because this is sinful. If they can refrain from doing that, it is fine.

My goodness! Nice study. Seriously.

But I'm sure I have seen a verse that talks about women doing detestable things with other women, too. I don't remember where it is, though.

But all of this is really interesting. The parts about the pedophelia is what I've heard used to jutify that God wasn't talking about gay people because it was pedophelia and rape.

 

[Bytez8888]

its no just a belief or an opinion its cleary stated in the bible....My goodness I am getting really fustrated with this, how can so many "christians" make excuses to sin like this? its nnot just fustrating, its very scarytoo, what is wrong with this generation????I am not talking about the gay people I am talking about the the christians that thinks homosexualism is okay....

And to tell them the truth is best way to show them that we love them, of course we should sensitive and everything but never make excuses to their behavior to make them feel better...God never changes..He never said that if you would live for Him, you would not have trouble, but the opposite and people will hate you because of the truth...

You can't change God's law to make people feel better, or feel that they are loved....They should feel that by the way you talk to them and of course by knowing what Jesus did for them on the cross...

Please stop making excuses....Homosexualism is abomination in God's eyes....

Musilany, you are obviously very passionate about your faith and about God. But people are different and see things differently. I dont see things black and white and 9 times out of 10 I give people the benefit of the doubt. I trust people when they shouldent be trusted.

You make referance to chrisitians making excuses. But that not true, we have our own opinions and ideas. A lot of christians have done their homework and researched and reached conclusions.

I think homosexuality is a sin, no doubt in my mind. But its a sin, not the greatest sin and we arent called to condemn people on their sins. The only judge is God and through Jesus Christ we are saved. Thats what matters to me, thats the most important. Now that i have reached that point in my life, i will spend the rest learning and studying the bible the best i can. Trying to understand what God called us to do.

No one has tried to change God's laws to make homosexuals feel better. If i am correct, the original thread point was, is their such a thing as a gay christian? If all sins are the same in front of God, and a homosexual beleivs in a savior who gave his life for them, so that they may have eternal life. Than yes, their are Gay christians.

Because im a Christian who beleivs in a mighty savior, but has lied and stolen. I have envied and committed adultery in the eyes of the lord. Their have been times that i felt i hated my brother, and God saids in the bible that hating your brother is the same as commiting murder. If God can forgive me of these thigns, the same sins that so many of us choose to committ every day. Than i beleive he forgives a homosexual too.

I dont want to offend you, or anyone else. So i hope you take my opinion for what it is, an opinion. I dont have the answers, no one does. The bible has the answers, and it condemns sin. And most of all, im not here in this forum to cause dissent, or create argument. I wanted to meet other good christian people and make friends. I like discussions and talking, and thats what im trying to do.

Zach

 

[godsbluesman]

Well... I have something to share if you all don't mind not wigging out. I'm a heterosexual in the making. Yep. That's right! I was gay and now I'm working on it, with God's help of course. ^-^ ... yep...

No wiggin out here-PRAISE GOD!

 

[GOD_IS_LOVE]

In matters great or small we should ALWAYS rely on God's Word, and not on our personal or on other people's personal experiences, no matter how convincing they may seem, cause if they do not align with the Word of God then it is just their heart deceiving them. As to interpreting God's Word, it leaves no room to interpretation, it is clearly stated that it is an abomination and society's views on it or whatever anyone says or experiences will not change that.THOSE WHO SAY THEY ARE GAY CHRISTIANS ARE JUST DECEIVING THEMSELVES. THEY WILL NOT BE "GAY" AT ALL ON THE JUDGEMENT DAY!

 

[zone]

Also, I have heard many testimonies of gay Christians who tried to go through therapy to "get cured" and they ended up so depressed because it wasn't something they chose or wanted.

A lot of Christians assume that it's a lifestyle choice, but that's not what I hear from people who are gay. Why would they choose this if they don't believe it's right or if they want to "be cured", or if they are being threatened, ostricised, or picked on for it? Why would they choose something like that?

God makes us all on purpose just the way we are, so why are people like this if they don't want it? If it's really who they are? And from a younge age. I learned in psychology that it's already done by the age of three. Three year olds don't think "Gee, I'm gonna be gay now!" You know?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Scripture doesn't flat out give the answers, and that is why I want personal stories and thoughts. (Do feel free to back up what you believe with scripture, though (anyone). I'm just saying that it isn't so clear-cut as that.

And I don't mean to offend anyone. Like I said, I'm just really confused and looking for answers.

my 2 cents:

God didn't make me a junkie or a drunk, but that's how i ended up years ago.

sin......sin.....sin.
repent.....repent.......repent!

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

I didn't plan on butting into this thread, but I read this article yesterday and, since it is relevant, thought I might share it's conclusion:

The article is from a recent issue of the North American Journal of Psychology and is called "Can Anyone Tell Me Why I'm Gay? What Research Suggests regarding the Origins of Sexual Orientation."

"In reading this literature [on the origins of sexual orientation], it is clear that personal bias and opinion have colored the presentation of scientific findings and their potential implications … Despite decades of research, the ultimate answer to the question posed in the title of this paper, 'Can anyone tell me why I'm gay?' is a resounding 'Not yet.' While there is some evidence to suggest physiological correlates ranging from genetic markers to structure and function of the brain, one can feel quickly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of contradictory findings on all of these fronts, and the news is no better, if not worse, for research concerning the role that familial and environmental factors play in the development of sexual orientation.

In reviewing this literature [on the origins of sexual orientation], several concerns emerge for this writer: 1) sample representativeness is problematic when researching issues as socially charged as sexual orientation, 2) the ethical considerations that must be made in human research often result in correlative data which makes causative inference problematic… 5) there seems to be an increasing focus on physiological mechanisms of origin for sexual orientation without regard for the role that familial/social/cultural environments may play in the process. " (280, 288-289).​

Jenkins, William. "Can Anyone Tell Me Why I'm Gay? What Research Suggests Regarding the Origins of Sexual Orientation." North American Journal of Psychology 12.2 (2010): 279-296.

we arent called to condemn people on their sins

On the contrary I think it is our duty to speak out against sin, especially sin amongst those who profess to be Christian.

Paul says that those who sin and are unrepentant must be put out from the church, and obviously this would require some acknowledgement of the sin and some condemnation of the sin: 1 Corinthians 5:12–13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” And even Jesus said “...If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, ” (Luke 17:3).

And as to the unbeliever, part of proclaiming the gospel is proclaiming God's demand of repentance from sin. The Christian must therefore call unbelievers to turn from their sin and to Christ. This may require that the Christian identify certain things as sin.

 

[silverwind]

My goodness! Nice study. Seriously.

But I'm sure I have seen a verse that talks about women doing detestable things with other women, too. I don't remember where it is, though.

But all of this is really interesting. The parts about the pedophelia is what I've heard used to jutify that God wasn't talking about gay people because it was pedophelia and rape.

I believe Romans 1:26 mentions women on this topic.

 

[Bytez8888]

On the contrary I think it is our duty to speak out against sin, especially sin amongst those who profess to be Christian.

Paul says that those who sin and are unrepentant must be put out from the church, and obviously this would require some acknowledgement of the sin and some condemnation of the sin: 1 Corinthians 5:12–13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” And even Jesus said “...If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, ” (Luke 17:3).

And as to the unbeliever, part of proclaiming the gospel is proclaiming God's demand of repentance from sin. The Christian must therefore call unbelievers to turn from their sin and to Christ. This may require that the Christian identify certain things as sin.

Yeah, i agree with that. I didnt really make myself clear on that. Your right on condemning the sin, i just think people condemn the person a lot of the time. I dont like hate, and some christians portray their hate of sin as hating people. I appreciate your post though, and calling me on my goof. And not just bashing me, it was very well though out and done in a kindly manner. I appreciate that.

Zach

 

[Bytez8888]

In matters great or small we should ALWAYS rely on God's Word, and not on our personal or on other people's personal experiences, no matter how convincing they may seem, cause if they do not align with the Word of God then it is just their heart deceiving them. As to interpreting God's Word, it leaves no room to interpretation, it is clearly stated that it is an abomination and society's views on it or whatever anyone says or experiences will not change that.THOSE WHO SAY THEY ARE GAY CHRISTIANS ARE JUST DECEIVING THEMSELVES. THEY WILL NOT BE "GAY" AT ALL ON THE JUDGEMENT DAY!

Yes it is a sin, and i cant speak for those christians who have homosexual feelings. But i feel like everyone is assuming that those who feel like they are gay, also feel as if they can committ adultery and extramarital affairs. I dont assume that, all of my posts have been under the assumption that a person who has feelings of homosexuality also beleive in God and have accepted Jesus and are searching for answers and forgiveness. For a discussion like this, we are all speaking for people who arent speaking for themselves. But those people are too scared to speak out because they dont feel like people are trying to help, from what ive seen that feel attacked and hated.

And their are different ways to interpret the bible as well, mostly about context. Taking a verse out of the bible, out of context will give it a meaning that was never intended. "I can do all thigns in christ who strengthens me" is not a verse about when we ask Jesus to win a soccer game,because we asked him to help us through his strength.Context is extremely important.

Zach

 

[Speeder]

Yes, Romans 1 DO mention women.... I left it out, because it is a passage without a certain translation.

There are SEVERAL views, of what Romans 1:18 onward means, specially, verses 26, and 27.

There are people, that say that it prohibits all kinds of sexual behavior that is not vaginal intercourse by two fertile persons, because one of the meanings of "unnatural" was anything that was not reproductive (thus, oral, anal, gay, masturbation, contraceptives, etc...)

I don't this that this is the case, because elsewhere in the bible this is not really supported.

Some people, believe that it only condemns anal sex, based on the same arguments of the meaning of "unnatural". Again, I don't think that this is the case.

Some people, think that this was about a practice of the romans (remember, the letter was written especifically to the romans), of temple prostitution, where priestess would have sex, to make Venus and some other fertility gods happy.

This is a possibility of a correct understanding.

Another view, is that it prohibited homosexual behavior for both males and females, this view has two problems:
First, it is not stated WHAT is "unnatural" lusts of women. It is not written that they lusted other women, or men, or anal sex, or whatever... Thus, this would be already sufficient to rule out, that this was against lesbianism...
The second problem, is how the greeks used the word "likewise", MAYBE (it is not certain), what Paul intended, was say that Men had lusts like Women had, and that the MEN women-like lusts, were sinful, that is because the greek "likewise", does not "transfer back" adjectives, only the stuff AFTER it, are "shameful" not stuff before it.

Another view, is that it only prohibited male homosexual behavior, like I just said, this view is because the word "likewise" meant that MEN having the same lusts as WOMEN was "shameful lusts"

I too, believe that this is a possiblity of correct understanding.


Another view, frequently defended by homosexuals, are that the passage is only about rape, or paederasty. I disagree, but it sorta makes sense (not completly... but taking the context, it is a possibility).


So, what view is certainly correct? I don't know, and actually noone know surely too (although several people claim to know, but they are not lieing, it is only what they really think it means, like science). Paul, had the habit of using some unusual gramatical constructions, and inventing words (like the mentioned Arsenokoites, that have all recorded uses, starting with Paul, and then people quoting Paul...)., maybe, we will never know...


What view, I believe is correct? I don't know either! But I DO know, the views that I think are wrong: The one about prohibiting all non-vaginal sex, the other one that prohibit only certain kinds of sex, and the one that states that lesbianism is wrong. This last one, because of the mentioned effect of "likewise" and because this is not supported in other places of the bible.

But if we ignore this passage, it is still clear, that male homosexualism ACTS are sinful.





Now just an extra note, to reinforce the thing about the ACTS.
Lots of homosexuals, say that the passage in corinthians, with the word "arsenokoites" is NOT about homosexual behavior, because a word already existed for "male homosexual" and that word is not arsenokoites.
But Paul specifically, wrote Arsen (men) and Koites (sex, an action), because the sin is DOING MALE-ON-MALE SEX. To reiterate, that the person "being gay" is not a sin, but having GAY SEX, is.

This, also implies that the translations of the passage that use the word "effeminate" are wrong. People can be effeminate all they want, do all sorts of "gay stuff" like speaking with female voice... As long they don't sin (including, they still have to do what Yahweh wants male people to do), there is nothing "wrong" with them.

 

[themusicmiss]

This is hard cos half the people on my college course are gay..or bi.
Makes things worse that my best friend is gay. He told me yesterday that He believes in God which was awesome but.. he said " Like adam ate the apple and sinned..Ive failed cos ive been with a guy".. I needed help right there cos i kinda froze :S :S I dont want to preach at him either. I swayed the conversation into "you can be forgiven.. Jesus forgives. You could sin 9,000 times and be cleansed from your sins." he looked rather shocked, not sure if he was buying it. I must study some of the replies on this cos you all have the quotes spot on with what we should treat these people like. hmm.

 

[Speeder]

Tell him that Yahweh loves him.
And that Yahweh dislike the fact that he had sex with a guy, but He is merciful and willing to forgive.

 

[Credo_ut_Intelligam]

Speeder,

Glad to see you’ve put some thought into this.

A couple observations:

But the Bible on general, says nothing about [being lesbian]. This may mean that lesbianism is allowed? Yes.

I don’t think we need explicit statements in Scripture to know that something is right or wrong. For instance, the Bible doesn’t say anything about internet pornography or pedophilia. But we can deduce with good and necessary consequence from Scripture that internet pornography and pedophilia is wrong.

To move from “The Bible says nothing [explicitly] about x” to “This may mean that x is allowed” seems a bit hasty. I don’t think there is any logical relationship between what Scripture doesn’t say and what is permissible.

The Bible isn’t an exhaustive rule book on ethics. It doesn’t tell us, for instance, whether it would be permissible to massacre aliens living on Mars, if in fact there are aliens living on mars. The fact that it is silent about whether or not it is permissible to massacre aliens living on Mars doesn’t give us any indication whether it is or is not permissible.

But by utilizing what Scripture does say, we might be able to infer with good and necessary consequence that it would be wrong to massacre aliens living on Mars.

[Romans 1:26-27] is a passage without a certain translation. There are SEVERAL views

Unfortunately, we can find persons who disagree about almost everything. For instance, if you were to list your theological views here I’m sure we could find persons who disagreed with each of them. If you were to list your interpretation of any particular passage (even John 3:16) I’m sure we could find persons who disagreed with that interpretation.

The fact of disagreement is multifaceted issue arising from many different factors. Sometimes it is just a reflection of human limitations and not on the clarity of Scripture. What we have to do in each instance where disagreement arises is lay out our case for why it means one thing rather than another.

There are people, that say that it prohibits all kinds of sexual behavior that is not vaginal intercourse by two fertile persons, because one of the meanings of "unnatural" was anything that was not reproductive (thus, oral, anal, gay, masturbation, contraceptives, etc...)

This interpretation would still rule out being lesbian.

Some people, believe that it only condemns anal sex, based on the same arguments of the meaning of "unnatural". Again, I don't think that this is the case.

This couldn’t refer to vs. 26 for obvious reasons. So it appears irrelevant to the issue of Romans 1:26 as a condemnation of lesbianism.

Some people, think that this was about a practice of the romans (remember, the letter was written especifically to the romans), of temple prostitution, where priestess would have sex, to make Venus and some other fertility gods happy.

What exactly is the evidence for this view? Cultic prostitution, especially in relation to Venus, was uncommon in Paul’s day:

“The size of the Roman temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth ruled out such temple prostitution; and by that time she had become Venus—the venerated mother of the imperial family and the highly respected patroness of Corinth—and was no longer a sex symbol” (After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 87-88; similarly, Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 55-56 qtd in Gagnon, “Bad Reasons for Changing One’s Mind.”)​

Furthermore, Gagnon notes that there is no evidence for lesbian cultic prostitution and, even as the pro-homosexual scholar Bernadette Brooten (who is herself a lesbian) admits, lesbianism was looked down upon and considered taboo even by persons who accepted male homosexuality. So to suggest that lesbianism would have been practiced openly by cult prostitutes is bordering on the absurd.

This is a possibility of a correct understanding.

To settle any disagreement or to make up our mind about any issue we need to go beyond what is possible to what is probable. Many absurd things are possible (for example, that my cat talk is possible). Does this mean that we should be on the fence as to whether my cat spoke to me at 3am last night or whether it was really just a dream? Of course not. Although it is possible, it is so improbable that the suggestion is absurd.

Likewise, we need to move beyond listing possible ways of understanding Romans 1:26-27 (or any other passage) to determining the most probable.

The second problem, is how the greeks used the word "likewise", MAYBE (it is not certain), what Paul intended, was say that Men had lusts like Women had, and that the MEN women-like lusts, were sinful, that is because the greek "likewise", does not "transfer back" adjectives, only the stuff AFTER it, are "shameful" not stuff before it… Another view, is that it only prohibited male homosexual behavior, like I just said, this view is because the word "likewise" meant that MEN having the same lusts as WOMEN was "shameful lusts"

I'm addressing this first so that my later comments on homoios make sense.

It's not clear to me how this is supposed to remove any reference to lesbianism from the text. Verse 26 says females adopted unnatural passions. Verse 27 says that in the same manner that females adopted unnatural passions, males adopted unnatural passions in lusting after other males.

Look at Luke 3:11, "And he answered them, 'Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.'”

Does this mean that the person who has food is to share in a tunic-like manner? What does that even mean? The point is simply that the one who has food is to do the same as the one who has an extra tunic.

Consider Revelation 2:14–15 "But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans."

Does this mean that Jesus' focus is only on the Balaam-like manner in which those of Pergamum were holding to the Nicolatian teaching? So that if they had held to the Nicolatian teaching in a non-Balaam-like manner they would have been fine?

This seems unreasonable to me. The point in each instance is to draw continuity or a parallel between the two subjects.

In order for this female-like lust view to be plausible, Paul should have been talking about females in their passion for males. That is their natural passion, isn't it? Thus, he could say "likewise, males have adopted female-like lusts for males," but in fact the passage reads nothing like this. Instead it talks about females having given up their natural passions and, likewise (or in the same manner), males have given up their natural passions.

But if someone wants to push the female-like lusts point then it doesn't even necessarily rule out lesbianism in verse 26. The passage could be understood like this: As females have given up their natural passions (and adopted a male-like lust for females), so males have give up their natural passions (and adopted female-like lust for males).

First, it is not stated WHAT is "unnatural" lusts of women. It is not written that they lusted other women, or men, or anal sex, or whatever...

The text says “...God gave them up to dishonorable passions...women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another...”

Clearly Paul draws a parallel between the woman’s unnatural passion and the man’s unnatural passion (cf. the word “likewise” which indicates the parallel). So if we can answer what the unnatural passion or lust of the man is then we can draw the parallel to the woman.

What does Paul say the unnatural lust of man is? Being consumed with passion for other men. This is clearly sexual passion, correct?

Likewise the unnatural lust of women would be a passion for (sexual relations with) other women.

Thus, this would be already sufficient to rule out, that this was against lesbianism...

Your method of inference seems strange to me. On the one hand, (a) you want to see cult prostitution as a valid inference of the text (unless I've misunderstood you) and on the other hand (b) you want to say that lesbianism is not a valid inference of the text, because Paul doesn't explicitly say they had unnatural sexual lusts for other women.

In the case of (a) it seems you are being too generous with your inferences and in the case of (b) it seems you are being too restrictive with your inferences.

But you can't have it both ways. If lesbianism is an invalid inference (or can be ruled out) because Paul does not say the women lusted after women then we can also rule out that Paul is referring to cultic prostitution since he doesn't not mention cultic prostitution.

Likewise, if one want to be so restrictive in their inference as to rule out lesbianism, then they have to rule out all attempts to identify the "unnatural desire." Thus, the person is left with absolutely no idea as to what Paul is talking about.

Because Paul did not explicitly say "the unnatural desire is this…" no one can know what he means. So Paul's words here are useless.

But clearly this is too radical a conclusion to draw. The grounds on which you rule out lesbianism are simply too restrictive and would lead us into total ignorance not only in regards to this passage, but thousands of other passages as well.

But in fact that Paul has in mind women lusting after women is clearly indicated by the text and the parallel he draws in verse 27.

Another view, frequently defended by homosexuals, are that the passage is only about rape, or paederasty. I disagree, but it sorta makes sense (not completly... but taking the context, it is a possibility)

This can be plausibly ruled out by the fact that what Paul is describing is consensual ("consumed with passion for one another") and not specified to men and boys (hence his language of females and males).

This last one, because of the mentioned effect of "likewise" and because this is not supported in other places of the bible

I've already addressed the "likewise" thing, but in regards to it not being found in other places of the Bible I would say that this is irrelevant. If the Bible only said in one place not to murder I think everyone would still recognize that murder is still wrong and the single prescription in the Bible against murder is just as equally binding as if it were repeated two or three or four times.

Furthermore, Scripture doesn't have to explicitly say a thing is wrong in order for us to know it is wrong and have biblical reasons for thinking so. For example, I'm not aware of any place in the Bible that condemns pedophilia or internet pornography. Do you think these things are okay? I doubt it.


Finally, I would recommend that you take a look at Bernadette Brooten's book "Love Between Women" if you haven't already. As I mentioned, she is a pro-homosexual bible scholar and in this book she provides a detailed exegesis of the Romans 1 passage in question and she concludes that Paul is in fact condemning male and female homosexuality. Her resource is valuable not just because of her level of scholarship, but because of her perspective addressing the issue as a lesbian who believes homosexuality should be embraced.