Homosexuality in the New Testament

[Hexagon]

I wasn't sure where to put this, as its not exactly breaking news or anything, so it seemed a little inappropriate for the LGBT News Rights Issues and Equality board. But there seemed no where better for it so anyway:

My parents and other moderate christians often say that although homosexuality is fine by jesus as its not mentioned in the new testament as being sinful. I did some research and came up with this page by a christian site about condemnation of homosexuality in the new testament. Thoughts?

New Testament Scriptures dealing with homosexuality

[Zontar]

Apologists clinging to whatever faith could spend 1,000 posts having a pissing match over the true meaning of X, Y, and Z Bible verses, so I'll just cap it with something very thought provoking:

Where are all the people who complain about gay sex in the Bible when it comes to condemning premarital sex?

[DoriaN]

I'm slowly going through the versus themselves and seeing what is written.

"Matthew 19:1-8"

At first it sounds like homosexuality, but actually it is regarding divorce, and to say that divorce should not be such a rash or casual happenstance. AKA, don't go after another if you are in an already commited relationship without just cause (If the woman cheats it is alright for her to divorce, not to want a 'cuter' man).

Busted.

"Romans 1:18-32"

Going through it multiple times I realized that it doesn't talk about homosexuality, but moreso about evolution. 'Scientists' like to claim we came from nature, and thus by thinking we the wiser, we turn into the fools. Furthermore, due to the lack of recognizing God in his glory, we give up 'holy' things such as marriage in a church, monogamous relationships, and true spirituality.
It also goes on to talk about murder and various acts to which have nothing to do with homosexuality, but sounds more like a non Christian who feels since they came from monkeys they will not be judged in the end.

Again, busted.


"1Cor 6:9-11"

The Bible talks about a person will be judged by the Heavens, not by man, and no man has more authority or a more righteous judgement than that of the Lord.
It also says that those who were true sinners can find redemption through realizing their wicked ways.
It lists theives, murderers, fornicators, effeminate, adulturers, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and abusers of man.
The confusing part is 'effeminate'. The context is not entirely clear, since that does not directly convey to being homosexual. A straight man can be effeminate, in the sense that he likes baking over sports, and prefers romance over action. It does not mean he is, or acts in any stereotypical gay manner at all.
What the bible is actually referring to I honestly cannot say, perhaps it might be something of the extreme of a man pretending to be female to possibly trick or coerce other men into such deeds as cheating on their wives or something of a sinful nature.

Honestly it's to up in the air to claim to either side, but REGARDLESS the passages write that those who believe in God will still inherit the kingdom of heaven.


"Galatians 5:19"

Has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It also references all the things I mentioned before, about murders etc, yet the previously mentioned 'effeminate' is missing.
It talks about loving thy neighbour, and not to resent or be harmful to them.
It basically says be a good person, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


"Ephesians 5:3-7"

Again, nothing to do with homosexuals, but rather those who plague the church and others with gambling, cheating, and unwholesomeness.



"Colossians 3:5-7 "

Same thing as before, nothing to do with homosexuality but rather to live a life where you honor God and NOT idols, money, etc.



"1 Tim 1:10"

Again nothing that directly or indirectly talks about homosexuals, it talks about self indulgence, liars, and the like. Basically more sinful stuff that has nothing to do with sexuality.
The 'defiling themselves with mankind' sounds a bit more like mankind trusting in man and not the Lord, men cheating and gambling for self gain and wealth among men instead of serving the Lord. It also makes more sense and holds up the previous passages.



"Titus 1:16"

I'm starting to get the feeling that the person who came up with the verses had things out of context, and only took direct context of single phrases or singular meanings. It pretty much talks about the whole theme of what I've already said, but again does not make any direct reference to homosexuality. The verse itself basically says that the wicked feel just in what they do
AKA, a murderer is likely to keep murdering, a theif is like to steal again and feel alright with it.
The Bible says these people have hardened themselves against any sort of 'morals' or guilt, and do whatever they can to justify their actions.



"Jude 1:4,7,19 "

It talks about men turning away from God and not believing in Him, however a homosexual can be Christian, so what then?
The next point talks about Sodom and Gomorrha, and 'strange flesh'. Well, going back to the Old Testament my understanding and belief is that the city took part in bestiality and all kinds of unmoral acts and polygamy. Although this itself is a huge part of controversy, my own research has told me that it has nothing to do with homosexuality but rather typical unlawful or sickening acts we still judge to this day.



"Rev 21:27"

It is a closing statement about how the evil shall not be in the Kingdom of Heaven, so no references to homosexuality.







Well, I'm not the best Christian myself, and I'm trying my best. The Bible says to read the words and passages, and using our GOD GIVEN BRAIN, to come to our own thoughts and conclusions on it.
I'm not homosexual, but in my heart I feel like God does not condemn or hate, or deny those that were born being gay. He loves everyone, and remember, there's one verse the the Bible, that trumps ALL.

John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, that WHOSOEVER believe in him, shall not perish, but have eternal life"



If you believe in Jesus, sincerely, you are already good to go.

I hope I helped...

[Hexagon]

Originally Posted by DoriaN

"1Cor 6:9-11"

It lists theives, murderers, fornicators, effeminate, adulturers, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and abusers of man.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"9Know 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,"

It actually lists the 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. To my mind, that sugests male homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

"10For 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;"

Again, 'for tem that defile themselves with mankind (although this might exclusively refer to women in this case)

I admit that for the most part, these people are interpreting things that don't necessarily refer to homosexuality as doing so, but the two verses above are move straightforward.

[Mogget]

I'm in the minority here on EC, but while I think a queer-positive reading of the New Testament is possible, I don't think it's justifiable. To understand what the writers of the NT would have thought of homosexuality, we aren't limited in knowledge solely to what's in the text, we can also use our knowledge of the cultures and values those writers existed in.

Jesus, according to most modern NT scholars, was a Torah-observant Jew. For all that Christian theology talks of him as someone who "liberated" people from the law, he seems to have been observant, telling people to observe Temple practices and to keep to the law. When he touched unclean people it was to make them clean.

So, what would Jesus, as a Torah-observant Jew, have thought of homosexuality? He wouldn't have approved of it. The interpretation of the Torah at that time, and to this day in Orthodox circles, was that only marital sex was permissible, and marital sex was, by definition, between a man and a woman. The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality isn't really relevant. We can fairly safely assume that if Jesus doesn't mention a practice that he agreed with the Judaic norms regarding that practice.

Paul is in a similar position. He was a Jew, though perhaps not a Torah-observant Jew as he believed that gentile, and possible all, Followers of the Way were not bound by the Torah. That said, he seems to have agreed with the Torah on sexual matters. In addition, Paul was fairly sex-negative, feeling that marriage was permitted only for those people who were too weak to abstain from sex as was right and proper. I think it very unlikely that he would have approved of homosexuality.

[DoriaN]

Originally Posted by RubiksCube

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"9Know 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,"

It actually lists the 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. To my mind, that sugests male homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:10

"10For 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;"

Again, 'for tem that defile themselves with mankind (although this might exclusively refer to women in this case)

I admit that for the most part, these people are interpreting things that don't necessarily refer to homosexuality as doing so, but the two verses above are move straightforward.

Abusers of mankind could mean many things, to me it sounds more like those who would become pimps or those who would torture or be cruel. Ever had a mean boss? It could even be as simple as a brother being mean to his little sister.

The Bible and it's verses can't always be taken directly, the inner meanings are key, and honestly if homosexuality was a direct enough problem there would be a far more explicit entry about it rather than vague nuances or casual mentionings, to this day are not 100% clear and are still widely debated.

Don't forget that in both the old testament and new there are very few mentions, and even still the 10 commandments had 0 mention of said acts.

If gay people have felt naturally gay from the time they were born without a doubt in their mind, why would God create them that way only for them to be destroyed later?

[Hexagon]

Originally Posted by DoriaN

Abusers of mankind could mean many things, to me it sounds more like those who would become pimps or those who would torture or be cruel. Ever had a mean boss? It could even be as simple as a brother being mean to his little sister.

The Bible and it's verses can't always be taken directly, the inner meanings are key, and honestly if homosexuality was a direct enough problem there would be a far more explicit entry about it rather than vague nuances or casual mentionings, to this day are not 100% clear and are still widely debated.

Don't forget that in both the old testament and new there are very few mentions, and even still the 10 commandments had 0 mention of said acts.

If gay people have felt naturally gay from the time they were born without a doubt in their mind, why would God create them that way only for them to be destroyed later?

Thats why it is 'Abusers of themselves with mankind', which means something completely different to 'Abusers of mankind' which was the point of my previous post.

And yet the bible still prescribes a death sentence for such an act. Thats the very question I've asked - if god makes a bad person bound by his nature then how can he then send him to hell?

[hml8]

Originally Posted by DoriaN

The Bible and it's verses can't always be taken directly, the inner meanings are key

Don't forget that in both the old testament and new there are very few mentions, and even still the 10 commandments had 0 mention of said acts.

I'm lead to believe that during the height of academia within Christianity there were traditional 4 ways of interpreting Biblical texts and that one can come to varied conclusions depending on which method one favoured. Furthermore it is as said necessary for one to us their brain as according to the teachings of Christianity reason was the gift given by God to distinguish between humanity and other creatures. Which of course leads to varying conclusions.

Also there are over 600 commanments in the Bible including commandments such as do not wear synthetic materials . . . I'm sure VERY FEW people wear 100% cotton for every piece of clothing!

Originally Posted by Mogget

Paul is in a similar position. He was a Jew, though perhaps not a Torah-observant Jew as he believed that gentile, and possible all, Followers of the Way were not bound by the Torah. That said, he seems to have agreed with the Torah on sexual matters. In addition, Paul was fairly sex-negative, feeling that marriage was permitted only for those people who were too weak to abstain from sex as was right and proper. I think it very unlikely that he would have approved of homosexuality.

I do indeed believe that there is a clear mention of homosexuality in Paul's letters worded along the lines of 'if man sleeps with man as with woman' though that's not a quote and I'm not 100% sure.

I dunno because we have to consider whether it's not mentioned much because when the Bible was written it was a given or whether it's not a key argument because it's not a big deal.

. . . maybe it could be argued that God created homosexuality to try to control the population, though that does mean that fertility treatments are wrong. :s

[DoriaN]

Originally Posted by RubiksCube

Thats why it is 'Abusers of themselves with mankind', which means something completely different to 'Abusers of mankind' which was the point of my previous post.

And yet the bible still prescribes a death sentence for such an act. Thats the very question I've asked - if god makes a bad person bound by his nature then how can he then send him to hell?

Themselves with mankind still holds true to what I say, it does not mean a directly sexual nature. It could, but it could also not. Mankind doesn't directly mean malekind, it means humans, abusers of humans, abusers of themselves with humans.

[mnguy]

Originally Posted by RubiksCube

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

1 Timothy 1:10

Did you read up on the Greek word arsenokoitai that was translated to mean "abusers of themselves with mankind" found in the above two references? If not, take a look at the following.

HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL VIEWS

I agree with the notion that the reference to homosexuality is a mistranslation meant to keep us gays in the closet.

[Sunsetting]

Originally Posted by Mogget

I'm in the minority here on EC, but while I think a queer-positive reading of the New Testament is possible, I don't think it's justifiable. To understand what the writers of the NT would have thought of homosexuality, we aren't limited in knowledge solely to what's in the text, we can also use our knowledge of the cultures and values those writers existed in.

Jesus, according to most modern NT scholars, was a Torah-observant Jew. For all that Christian theology talks of him as someone who "liberated" people from the law, he seems to have been observant, telling people to observe Temple practices and to keep to the law. When he touched unclean people it was to make them clean.

So, what would Jesus, as a Torah-observant Jew, have thought of homosexuality? He wouldn't have approved of it. The interpretation of the Torah at that time, and to this day in Orthodox circles, was that only marital sex was permissible, and marital sex was, by definition, between a man and a woman. The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about homosexuality isn't really relevant. We can fairly safely assume that if Jesus doesn't mention a practice that he agreed with the Judaic norms regarding that practice.

Paul is in a similar position. He was a Jew, though perhaps not a Torah-observant Jew as he believed that gentile, and possible all, Followers of the Way were not bound by the Torah. That said, he seems to have agreed with the Torah on sexual matters. In addition, Paul was fairly sex-negative, feeling that marriage was permitted only for those people who were too weak to abstain from sex as was right and proper. I think it very unlikely that he would have approved of homosexuality.

fascinating and intriguing


i have to say that this whole thread is interesting...

[Mogget]

It comes down to how you want to see the Bible. If you look at it as a timeless, divinely dictated or inspired book, then hermeneutical interpretations that hinge on whether homosexuality is explicitly referred to in the Bible are legitimate and matter. But if you look at it as a book written (or divinely inspired) in and for a specific culture with certain well-known mores that reflects the culture and mores, then a queer-positive interpretation really isn't possible and a queer-neutral interpretation is questionable at best.

[Alexandria]

I love it when religious folk try to divide their precious bible in an effort to segment and not acknowledge how the same being in the same encyclopedia of books that comprise the bible of being a sadistic bloodthirsty savage butcher. Let me drop a bit of old testament on ya'll --

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22. (Courtesy of skepticsannotatedbible.com)

So, bearing this in mind; that it is in fact a commandment from god itself directly, where, the , is it said in the 'new testament' that this has been rescinded?

Here's a lil hint - it does not.

It was spoken, according to the *Mythology*, by the same being, one that is claimed to be perfect and omnipotent. One that supposedly created humanity in its perfection, no less. Never minding that entire hopeless paradox, fact remains,it is the same being, and no where that I am aware of does the bible say that god screwed up (in regards to the old testament itself) and to disregard it; as we might now disregard an outdated technical or law manual. Your god was not (and *IF* it currently exists as per scripture, *IS* not) a forgiving creature by any stretch - yet I do love the irony that if god created all there is, then homosexuality is in that all category, which would obstensively mean god is a self hating gay male.

Love the pattern there.

[Mogget]

Alexandria, the writings of Paul make it quite clear that he didn't consider the Torah to be binding on Gentile Christians. That's the whole point of the Epistle to the Galatians, and a prominent theme in most of his other epistles. Since Paul is, in the Christian tradition, regarded as a divinely inspired prophet, it is sound both theologically and hermeneutically to interpret almost all of the Torah (with the exception of the handful of passages Jesus quotes in the Gospels) as having no authority.

Indeed, many early Christians did not consider any of the scriptures of the Jewish community to be divinely inspired. Marcion, who compiled the first Christian Bible, excluded all Jewish writings from it as he believed Yahweh was an evil being that Jesus liberated people from. Throughout Christian history (except during the first century), the idea that the Torah is binding on Gentiles has been decidedly a minority position.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by Mogget

Alexandria, the writings of Paul make it quite clear that he didn't consider the Torah to be binding on Gentile Christians. That's the whole point of the Epistle to the Galatians, and a prominent theme in most of his other epistles. Since Paul is, in the Christian tradition, regarded as a divinely inspired prophet, it is sound both theologically and hermeneutically to interpret almost all of the Torah (with the exception of the handful of passages Jesus quotes in the Gospels) as having no authority.

Indeed, many early Christians did not consider any of the scriptures of the Jewish community to be divinely inspired. Marcion, who compiled the first Christian Bible, excluded all Jewish writings from it as he believed Yahweh was an evil being that Jesus liberated people from. Throughout Christian history (except during the first century), the idea that the Torah is binding on Gentiles has been decidedly a minority position.

See, I would grant that, given I am not a biblical scholar; however given how often we DO see so very often people of the 'new' testament pull from the 'old', and given there is a general concensus (your example notwithstanding) that it was and is the same being; it does render the whole point moot, does it not?

[Ridiculous]

Originally Posted by RubiksCube

I did some research and came up with this page by a christian site about condemnation of homosexuality in the new testament. Thoughts?

My thoughts? It's a book. Does it matter what it said or didn't say? I would've hoped that civilisation could be able to think for themselves rather than base all their actions on the lifestyle of a 2000 year old culture that was absolutely terrible to live in.

I mean come on. Base your actions on the well-being of those around you, here and now. Not ancient, purposefully cryptic passages whose true meaning has almost certainly been lost after passing through the Rube-Goldberg machine of translation down the ages. Opinions gained from the bible should have no impact on moral guidance just as they no longer have any impact on medical guidance.

As other posters above have mentioned, even attempting to gain some sort of framework for living from the bible is just going to cause more conflicts, because everyone seems to get completely different impressions when they read it. How can this possibly be a good thing?

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by Ridiculous

My thoughts? It's a book. Does it matter what it said or didn't say? I would've hoped that civilisation could be able to think for themselves rather than base all their actions on the lifestyle of a 2000 year old culture that was absolutely terrible to live in.

I mean come on. Base your actions on the well-being of those around you, here and now. Not ancient, purposefully cryptic passages whose true meaning has almost certainly been lost after passing through the Rube-Goldberg machine of translation down the ages. Opinions gained from the bible should have no impact on moral guidance just as they no longer have any impact on medical guidance.

As other posters above have mentioned, even attempting to gain some sort of framework for living from the bible is just going to cause more conflicts, because everyone seems to get completely different impressions when they read it. How can this possibly be a good thing?

I would wholly agree with you - problem being, there are literally millions of people that take it literally, directly and seriously. Ergo, given they use that as the basis of reasoning to deny us of our rights; to cause immense psychological harm to anyone that refuse to submit themselves to it.


Because of this, we HAVE to stand firm - or they will follow their doctarine, whatever twisted "interpretation" they try to use to justify their bloodthirsty actions and continue to work against not just our rights, but the rights of any and all those that. Wish to live free of their dogma.

[Ridiculous]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I would wholly agree with you - problem being, there are literally millions of people that take it literally, directly and seriously. Ergo, given they use that as the basis of reasoning to deny us of our rights; to cause immense psychological harm to anyone that refuse to submit themselves to it.


Because of this, we HAVE to stand firm - or they will follow their doctarine, whatever twisted "interpretation" they try to use to justify their bloodthirsty actions and continue to work against not just our rights, but the rights of any and all those that. Wish to live free of their dogma.

Yeah I understand where you're coming from, but I can't help but think that approaching it in this way is still validating getting your morals from religious scripture. If we keep doing this then the problem will never go away.

[Alexandria]

Turning a blind eye or simply accepting when these acts against our person or our rights makes it worse, not better. The only way is to say that if they should push their beliefs on us, then we will oppose it. They can believe whatever they want; and all are free to debate, but we have to show we DO know their games and will not buckle to them.

If they dislike their flaws exposed, then they need to correct their flaws.