What does the Bible actually say about being gay?

BBC ^ | October 23, 2003 | BBC

[asformeandformyhouse]

But not Jesus. In fact, He never said a word on the subject

He gave the apostles the authority to speak for him.

Matthew 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[Skooz]

The Gospels are a record of what Jesus said and did, which was usually to tell people what they did not know. The fact that homosexuality is a sin was well known among the Jews, as it was codified in the Law. He did not need to tell them it was sin; they knew that already.

God used the Apostle Paul to reiterate the matter in Scripture and place it in a New Covenant context.

[William Terrell]

The only reference:

James 2: 3

And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

[OpusatFR]

"PRO-GAY
A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive."

OH geez. The classic lefty argument. You are naive, homophobic, hateful, blah blah blah blah........

So the rag knows that the Bible states David was gay?

[newcats]

literally that it makes him want to puke.

Does anyone else have problems imagining God....puking?

[jetson]

It depends on the definition of lie.

[VOA]

bump

[ZULU]

The Bible is quite clear about homsexuality and other deviant acts, Read the Mosaic laws in detail in Exodus.

Homosexuality is a filthy, unnatural abberation.

Male and female were designed to procreate, not male and male or female and female. The fact that reproduction is only possible between two individuals of opposite sexes in the overwhelming number of higher species of animals prooves this beyond any contention.

[Always Right]

Why don't we discuss fornicators,slanderers,thieves,adulterers,like we do homosexuals?

Because there are not activists for theives and adulterers trying to normalize the behavior, trying to teach its acceptance in our schools, trying to gain extra legal protection for their behavior, actively promoting the behavior, trying to demonize anyone who does not accpet the behavior, etc, etc, etc....

[Always Right]

I simply think we can be hypocrites if we only concentrate on homosexuality.

It would only be hypocritical if there were activists promoting the other sins.

[Agnes Heep]

Because fornicators, slanderers, thieves, adulterers are not trying to convince the whole world that the bible says it's ok to fornicate slander, steal, commit adultery and convince everyone that the above is normal and acceptable behavior.

You're obviously not familiar with the Democrats.

[GWfan]

Spinning the Bible has been the focus of anyone who has been convicted by his/her conscience and doesn't want to change. It's not a comfortable feeling to think that sin separates us from God.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping. There's so much here I'm not sure where to start...

[eastsider]

There's so much here I'm not sure where to start...

Allow me ...

Jesus himself says nothing explicitly about homosexuality. There are though two statements by him which have been interpreted as having a bearing on the subject. [Mt19:5; Mt19:11-12]

They've left out what is arguably the most important reference: Mt15:19 (see also Mk7:21) --

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

[scripter]

That's a start! :-) I've been looking for a website I found yesterday but time constraints force me to move on for now. Thanks for the post.

[John O]

Lets deal with the easiest one first

From the KJV:

1 Corinthians 6:9 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,

PRO-GAY A pro-gay position might be that the word Paul uses for homosexual here could alternatively be translated as "male prostitute". In any case, Paul's writings are clearly of his time, and there are plenty of other verses which people have no difficulty in ignoring - for instance: "a woman brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bare-headed; it is as bad as if her head were shaved." This should be viewed like that.

The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" (commonly translated 'homosexual') is from the Greek word "arsenokoites" Strongs number 733:

(my apologies are due here. The first entry in each definition should be in greek but I don't have and cannot install a greek font on this machine)

"733 arsenokoithv arsenokoites ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace

from 730 and 2845; ; n m

AV-abuser of (one’s) self with mankind 1, defile (one’s) self with mankind 1; 2

1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual"

It comes form the words "arrhen" Strongs number 730 and "koite" Strongs number 2845.

"730 arrhn arrhen ar’-hrane or arshn arsen ar’-sane

probably from 142; ; adj

AV-male 4, man 3, man child 1, man child + 5207 1; 9

1) a male"

"2845 koith koite koy’-tay

from 2749; ; n f

AV-bed 2, conceive 1, chambering 1; 4

1) a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in
1a) a bed, couch
2) the marriage bed
2a) of adultery
3) cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
3a) sexual intercourse"

Now lets look at all the possible meanings and bounce them against the bible and common sense and the culture of the times.

Arrhen always means male. Linked with koite we have:

1. Male + place for lying down. As opposed to a female place for lying down? and why would a male place for lying down be worried about getting into heaven anyway? I guess we can cross this one off the list. Makes no sense in context

2. Male + Bed. See #1

3. Male + Marriage bed. Inconsistent with the bible and the culture as there was no male-male marriage. Alternately there is no furniture going to heaven anyway. Cross this one off. Makes no sense in context. 4. Male + adultery. While male adulterers don't go to heaven Paul already mentions this just three words prior. Cross this one off too. Makes no sense in context

5. Male + cohabitation. A man leaves his father and mother to live with his wife. In that time and that culture a man lived with his parents and unmarried siblings until he got married. The houses were small and the families were large. Brothers shared the same room and probably the same bed. Also, cohabitation is not spoken against any where else in the bible. Cross this one off too.

6. Male + sexual intercourse. Normal sexual intercourse is understood to involve a man and a woman. It doesn't have an identifier before it (Have you ever seen the usage female sexual intercourse?) So if the identifier was required then this is not talking of normal sexual intercourse but sexual intercourse between 2 males. In various places in the OT and the NT this is spoken against. I think we have a winner here. This is the only interpretation that both makes sense in context and is internally consistent with the rest of the bible.

Note well that it doesn't say anything about prostitution, the act itself is the topic, not the circumstances of it.

Therefore arsenokoites can only be interpreted as 'those who practice homosexual behavior' and those who practice homosexual behavior are not getting into heaven.

[eastsider]

(my apologies are due here. The first entry in each definition should be in greek but I don't have and cannot install a greek font on this machine)

Try doing it this way:

< font face=“symbol” > GREEK WORD </font >

For example, using the formula above, if I replace "GREEK WORD" with the word Petra, it will look like this:

Petra

[John O]

(from KJV) 2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

PRO-GAY

A pro-gay position might be that this is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

Again have to check against rest of the Word for consistency. The bible says that David was a man after God's own heart. Since the rest of the bible states that God's own heart is against the practice of homosexuality we can state that David was not practicing this behavior.

A further proof to this is that when David did sin he was punished quickly and severely for it. What punishment was there for his friendship with Jonathan?

Also note that verses 17 to 27 are a song written by David to eulogize Jonathan. Some poetic license is granted here. See Psalm 133 where David describes unity in similar overwhelming terms. (unity is as the sacred annointing oil)

Also this could be a bit of a slam against Jonathans sister Michal (David's wife) who wasn't such a good wife. Jonathan loved David better than his sister did and his sister was David's wife.

"1 Samuel 20:42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city."

Jonathan was obviously family minded as he talks about his descendents. Not a typical 'homosexual' mindset.

In any event, assuming David practiced homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the rest of scripture

[John O]

"They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"

A little context:

Genesis 19:4 ¶ But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

PRO-GAY
Of course the men's behaviour was wicked, but it was wicked because it's a tale of sexual assault and rape. When Jesus mentions Sodom, hundreds of years later, it appears to be in a context of a discussion of hospitality, rather than one of sexual morality.

As we can see from the scriptures this was not a problem of inhospitality. If "Know" was anything else other then "have sex with" it would not have been an issue.

"Hey honey, the neighbors want to come over and visit with our guests" No big deal.

"Hey honey, the neighbors want to come over and have sex with our guests" Big deal.

The fact that Lot offered his daughters to the crowd to have sex with (he makes a point that they are virgins, why?, unless the crowd was interested in sex) as a substitute for the visitors establishes the crowd's intent toward the visitors. They wanted to have sex with them.

Now since the people who came to Lots house were the men of the town and since the visitors were men and since Lot tells the crowd to have his daughters rather than perform wickedness with his visitors we can safely assume that the reason Sodom got nuked was because of homosexual behavior

Every mention that Jesus makes of Sodom uses them as an example of how horrible things will be for those who refuse Him (exception being Luke 17:29 where He uses them as an example of the suddenness of destruction when the chosen people are removed). He makes no mention of hospitality.