Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Personal Growth & Spirituality  › Spirituality › Religious Studies › So the bible says homosexuality is a sin?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

So the bible says homosexuality is a sin?

post #1 of 43
6/20/11 at 6:21am
Thread Starter 
Help me understand this in the NICEST way possible. I was talking with my MIL about gay marriage and I am for it but she is totally against it because it is a sin. I asked her why and she said the bible says so in the story of sodom and gumorah and the man sinners wanted the angels to perform gay sex acts with them. What!? Is this what the bible says and is this why people are freaking out about gays because of this story? I just don't get it? Is this the reason christians think it is a sin? If you are a christian and are for gay rights, do you believe in the Sand G story?
Please enlighten me without blowing up about it as this could be a touchy subject.

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #2 of 43
6/20/11 at 7:17am

Yes the bible does say that it is wrong. Sodom and Gumorah is found in Genesis 19. It also says that it is wrong in the Law. BUT many other "things" are wrong. WHY the christian single out GAYS is BEYOND me. It gives Jesus a bad name.

 

God/Jesus loves all. Jesus can to die for EVERYONE. Not just the "good people". We are all sinners we have all done wrong. Gay, porn stars, drug dealer and the everyday man are all loved by God!!!!!!

post #3 of 43
6/20/11 at 8:07am

Um actually that is the prevalent interpretation but is actually incorrect, that was not the sin of Soddam and Gomorrah, if you go back to the original translations, their sin was being self centered, arrogant and not humble.  That instead of helping his visitors, he pawned it off. 

 

Just like "suffer not witches to live" is a mistranslation of the original greek that should have been translated "suffer not POISONERS to live"...big difference

 

post #4 of 43
6/20/11 at 9:30am

I probably wouldn't use the S&G story as my foundation for the Bible's approach to homosexuality.

 

There is enough, both in old testament and new testament that specifies sexual relations between same-sex people as wrong.  Further, it is not *being* homosexual that is a sin, but the sexual behavior.  Heterosexual sex, outside of marriage, is sin. I do think the church has lost any leg to stand on when it comes to homosexuality, given the statistics that exist regarding premarital sex, adultery, and divorce among professed Christians.  Can't tell you how many of my "Christian" peers in highschool were flagrantly promiscuous, but saw not contradiction in calling homosexuality sin. It was very odd.

 

As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.

post #5 of 43
6/20/11 at 3:28pm

Yeah that...

post #6 of 43
6/20/11 at 4:14pm


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
....I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.


....and so long as gays who join in civil unions are afforded the same rights under the law as married couples enjoy.

 

Why Not Civil Unions?

 

post #7 of 43
6/20/11 at 4:35pm

I believe homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christianity (though not because of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, see Ezekiel 16:49-50), but the USA is not a Christian theocracy. Legal marriage is used by everybody, not just Christians. It is against the First Amendment and against our country's "separation of church and state" ideal to outlaw anything just because the Bible says people shouldn't do it.

post #8 of 43
6/20/11 at 10:20pm
In Sodom & Gamorrah, the problem was not about homosexual sex. it was about rape; the men wanted to rape the angels. additionally, the host offered his daughters in their place.
post #9 of 43
6/21/11 at 5:51am
Thread Starter 
Wow thanks for all the thoughts. It is really nice to hear all the view points. Off to check out Ezekiel. Any other scripture references?
post #10 of 43
6/21/11 at 9:13am

1 Timothy 1 mentions homosexuality in a list of things that are unlawful.

Quote:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Romans 1 also mentions homosexuality as if it should be known that it is a sin. It doesnt mention the word 'homosexual' but words it like this:

 

Quote:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

When I find others Ill post them

post #11 of 43
6/22/11 at 7:23pm

In addition to what Genifer posted, there is I Corinthians 6:9, 10:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

post #12 of 43
6/23/11 at 1:22am

That is the one I was thinking of looking for. Thank you.

 

Now, along with what I posted I wanted to add that I personally agree with pretty much everything Cappuccinosmom said. We dont live in a theocracy and Im SO glad we dont, bc humans just cant impliment God's law/standards. However...

 

 

Quote:

There is enough, both in old testament and new testament that specifies sexual relations between same-sex people as wrong.  Further, it is not *being* homosexual that is a sin, but the sexual behavior.  Heterosexual sex, outside of marriage, is sin. I do think the church has lost any leg to stand on when it comes to homosexuality, given the statistics that exist regarding premarital sex, adultery, and divorce among professed Christians.  Can't tell you how many of my "Christian" peers in highschool were flagrantly promiscuous, but saw not contradiction in calling homosexuality sin. It was very odd.

 

 

 

 

...The underlined/bolded: Im not sure I would word it like that. I think we/humans have an innate nature towards sinning as the fallen human race. I think it is sinful to have homosexual thoughts/tendancies as well as the act itself being sinful, just like Jesus said it is sinful to have lustful thoughts was as bad as having committed adultery (it can become a habit, a 'stronghold' which leads to 'sinful' behaviour'), or the fact that even being angry with someone is as bad as having murdered them. I think it is the nature of humans to be sinful. To go our own way, to love things that go against God and His ways. Homosexuality is no different, as far as what *I* understand (scripturally speaking). It is true that there are christians who view the subject and biblical interpretation of the subject differently, but I guess we're voicing the opinion of those who believe it is a sin.

 

 

Quote:
As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.

The above, I completely agree with especially the bold.

post #13 of 43
6/23/11 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfcat View Post

In Sodom & Gamorrah, the problem was not about homosexual sex. it was about rape; the men wanted to rape the angels. additionally, the host offered his daughters in their place.


This is consistant with how I understood the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I have heard these called Clobber passages because the passages cited often are either mistranslated or taken out of context.  I found this information useful: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

post #14 of 43
6/24/11 at 8:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post
As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.


Wait, which religion? Cuz MY religion allows for anyone to marry anyone they want, so long as all parties are consentual (and of a reasonable age). And since the "definition" stuff is all about LEGALITY, not religion, the definition of word "marriage" IS a secular thing...

 

*ponders serving up some Jim Crow pie*

post #15 of 43
6/24/11 at 10:08pm

Have her check out this: http://www.themarinfoundation.org/  

My parents get involved in this stuff, are evangelical Christians, and they are going to pride next weekend with their gay daughter (my sister) if that says anything about where they stand :) 

post #16 of 43
6/25/11 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom View Post

As to marriage, I would prefer that marriage remain defined as between a man and a woman.  However, I don't have a problem with a secular government including homosexual unions in their secular, civil, legal definition of unions.  So long as it remains seperate from religious unions and those whose religion prohibits such unions cannot be charged with any kind of illegality if they refuse to include those unions in their religions definition of marriage.



 

The state's (as in government) gonna do what it's gonna do. I, however, wish that the clergy (of whatever faith tradition) could get out of the business of being the gov't agents for performing marriages. I wish that here it the States, we had the set-up that they have in France - I'm sure other countries do it, not sure which ones - where you have a civil ceremony. If a couple wants a religious ceremony, that's separate.

post #17 of 43
6/25/11 at 4:36pm

For me, Pope John Paul IIs talks on the theology of the body and the natural created order are what made it make sense to me. I think one of the best sources on the subject is A Body of Truth on Catholic radio international ( and itunes). Father Loya just makes it all pretty easy to understand IMO. It's not specifically about homosexuality, but about who is man and who is woman and who are they to each other. Of course he does address homosexuality too, but that isn't the primary focus of theology of the body. Really need to listen to it from the first podcast though ( the oldest one in 2008 called Your Body Speaks to Me), because he starts with the basics and then builds on it and later podcasts cover peripheral stuff. 

post #18 of 43
6/25/11 at 6:00pm

First of all, what kind of  sexual act people performed does not make up their sexual orientations.

 

More straight than gay male couple engage in anal sex now.

 

A straight man and straight women who are having oral and dildo assisted anal sex only are not gay (but according to your MIL logic they would be

 

Secondly, who cares what Bible says? It has been mistranslated and misinterpreted by people for hundreds of years. If someone wants to follow it literally and do things like cutting off their left hand if they wiped their butt with it, or have 700 concubines or sell their children into slavery , it is between  them and the local jurisdiction. As long as they do not trample on my freedoms, I do not care what bible followers do.

 

Thirdly, I am so sorry that your MIL is bigot.

 

 

post #19 of 43
6/25/11 at 10:08pm

I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone should have the right to a civil union. This civil union is what the government should recognize, and it should confer upon the partners the same legal/tax rights that 'marriage' currently does. Those who choose, can then also receive a religious marriage blessed by their religion. But everyone who wants the legal benefits needs to do the governmental union. That way, the religion is then free to put whatever restrictions on that marriage that it will. But there's no reason that the government should adhere to a Biblical tradition of marriage = man+woman.

 

And whenever this issue comes up, I'm constantly reminded of the passages from the Gospels about the greatest commandments:

(from Matthew 22:36-40)

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

I just can't reconcile banning gay marriage with these passages.

post #20 of 43
6/26/11 at 1:34pm

Really do we need governmental sanctioned unions at all?  I mean really, half of all "marriages" end in divorce anyway.  Why shouldn't it just be every man for himself rather than special privleges for people who are officially paired up in someways but not others.  I don't think it should matter in a custody issue if the parents were married.  We have science to determine paternity.  Shouldn't anyone living together have some kind of protection  and some legal rights?  I say screw it all and just put the government out of the relationship business.  And no benefits or penalties for people who are married/single/what have you.

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Personal Growth & Spirituality  › Spirituality › Religious Studies › So the bible says homosexuality is a sin?