On homosexuality: a Bible study

By Alexander Carpenter

As is clear to anyone who's cruised through the 130-plus comments, discussion of the proper Christian homosexual position has been pinned somewhere between missionary zeal for openness and dogged opposition.

While discussion was kicked off by a film, thus far the comments have danced around the actual scriptural support without really digging into the text.

I'm ready to tackle the text and only the text. Time for some good ol' Sola Scriptura and Holy Spirit-blessed reasoning. And I've got a serious Bible study to kick it off.

Let me introduce you to Justin Cannon. He attends the Graduate Theological Union with me and he arrived with a bit of notoriety due to his man bites dog story. Justin takes the Bible very seriously and he has a boyfriend. He runs a site for theologically conservative gay Christians called Inclusive Orthodoxy where he writes of GLBTs:

The Church needs to embrace and support this group of people, not despite scripture and tradition, but in light of scripture and tradition. The doors of the church need to be opened and human prejudices set aside, so that we can truly live according to the law that Christ taught us.

If you're ready for a serious 15-page Bible study on the actual six texts and the issue of procreative sex, here you go: The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality.

There is also a rule on the comments for the post. They can only be on the textual issues, so let's have some Sola Scriptura in practice and bring your thoughtful support or critique of the Biblical evidence.

Comments

[Johnny A. Ramirez]

Alex,
I hear you saying that the comments in that thread skirted scripture. Now I did comment on that thread focusing on John 8:1-11 and other people did cite specific texts on homosexual practice but I hear you saying you want more, or perhaps different, take on what Scripture has to say about homosexuality.

Cannon begins by seeking to redefine or clarify the meaning of "homosexual" and "sodomy"- not a trivial point because his further study hinges entirely on his assertion that contemporary homosexual(s) and homosexual practice somehow are not included in the Biblical use of those terms. That would be, in my reading at least, one of the main thrusts of commenter's on the other thread.

You know, I'm not even going to go into that line of criticism because I don't think it is necessary. Why?

For the same reason that Cannon doesn't think it necessary to spend any time at all addressing why Scriptural notions of marriage could ever include anything other than a single man and a single woman. He writes-

Extending his response to a blanket denial of homosexual marriage goes well beyond the text.

If we assume that Scripture doesn't deny homosexual marriage explicitly does that mean it supports it implicitly? What an interesting notion!

What is supported explicitly is marriage between one woman and one man. This is done repeatedly not only in creation but again in the many junctions against adultery and in favor of marital fidelity and is even used as an analogy to describe God's relation to the church.

My scriptural references of choice wouldn't mention homosexuals at all rather they would be those texts (Proverbs 6:20-32 and 7:1-21, Matthew 5:27-32, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8 etc.) which repeatedly admonish us to restrain our sexual expressions to marriage.

If sex only belongs inside of marriage and marriage is between one man and one woman then there is no Scriptural support whatsoever to homosexual expressions. I'd ask for a scriptural reference which would support extending the institution of marriage beyond one man and one woman. In this paper I saw no such reference.

Thanks!

[Double Espresso]

I think we need to be able to say about the subject, "not all christians agree on this..." rather than attempt to speak on behalf of all christians with an entrenched position.

I would hope that at least those opposed to the acceptance of homosexuality would at least accept that those who do don't do it because they are "liberal" or "it suits them" of "they want to excuse anything" but because it is a genuine way to understand the scriptual position.

[Joselito Coo]

May I suggest, perhaps on another thread, that we take up the general subject of human sexuality across cultures instead of homosexuality alone. Advocacy issues often tend to color our different perspectives due to personal biases that go way beyond what may be considered acceptable in an objective investigation of biblical texts. My other reason for recommending this is, needless to say, so we can view homosexuality and related gender issues as part of a larger picture.

[Shawn Brace]

It is not my intention to get too bogged down with this discussion, but I just perused Justin's paper. Although there are a number of things I could object to, one that jumped out at me was in relation to Romans 1:24-27, where he proposes that "a little historical knowledge would identify this situation as an orgy," referring to orgies that accompanied Baal worship, which the OT condemned.

This is a huge stretch. Where does this "knowledge" come from that Paul was referring to these practices? Certainly not from Paul, himself. Neither are there any textual clues that this is what Paul was referencing.

And to say that Paul was merely condemning heterosexuals who were practicing homosexuality is a gross twisting of his point.

For an exhaustive scholarly treatment of the OT view on homosexuality/heterosexuality, I would recommend Richard Davidson's recent book, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, pp. 133-176.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Alex

It is vain to extenuate the situation—Homosexual behavior is a sin:

One of an infinite number of which mankind is guilty.
Everyone of which Jesus Christ died for!
Since we are all sinners, we do not condemn each other, but neither do we defend their sinful actions or any including our own.
Furthermore, as sinners saved by the blood of Jesus, we
use every means and resource at our disposal to bring others to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
Homosexual behavior is a sin of a minority of human beings.
Why not a blog on the sins of the majority—maybe that is your point—casting judgment on a vulnerable subset of humanity.

I suggest we try truthfulness. It seems to me there is a serious lack among all of us but none so as among those who would define God and godliness.

How far does one have to study to explain the plan of salvation to one of one’s own tongue? Tom.

[Carrol Grady]

Johnny, arguing from silence is not convincing to me. God addressed issues that people were prepared to understand, and when Paul wrote the Jewish people and early Christians had no basis for understanding the scientific concept of homosexual orientation.

There were some interesting points Cannon brought out that I hadn't heard explained quite that way before, but there are also, I believe, some insights missing in his study that are included in my series of Bible studies to be found at www.someone-to-talk-to.net

Tom, it is easy for me to understand why stealing, for instance, is a sin, because you are taking something that belongs to someone else against their will.

Or why lying is a sin, because by deceiving someone you are not allowing them to know the truth and not knowing the truth has the potential to harm them.

Or why dishonoring your parents is a sin, because you owe your very life to them.

Or why adultery in marriage is a sin, because you are stealing the affections of someone's partner.

Or why covetousness is a sin, because you are stealing your own contentment, and may be led to steal something that belongs to someone else.

All of these actions are sin because they harm other persons. But could someone please tell me what there is about loving someone of the same sex (if you are unable to have this bond with someone of the opposite sex) that harms anyone, or why you think God would consider this a sin, especially a sin in the same category as the others I mentioned.

While it may not be the Creation ideal, neither, I would assert, is any heterosexual marriage of today living up to that ideal. As I mentioned before, there are many people who are unable to comply with the Creation command to be fruitful and multiply, yet we don't consider them sinners. We encourage them to have as normal a family as possible through adoption or fertility technology. Why do we see this as so different? I think there is still a large degree of Augustinian guilt and discomfort associated with the idea of enjoying and celebrating God's good gift of sexuality.

And of course, this is something most of us don't have to worry about!

Double Espresso, I agree that those who do not read the Bible this way are also sincere and genuine, and I appreciate that. My hope is that while we may not agree, we will all be willing to love, accept and pray for each other - and let the Holy Spirit move in our midst, convicting us as he sees fit. "The greatest of these is LOVE!"

[Elaine Nelson]

Carrol, that is a very cogent argument: to label something "sin" that harms no one else, is not found in Ten God gave us. Jesus repeated the command from the OT to treat others as you would wish to be treated. Also, he and the apostles said that to love one's neighbor is to fulfill the law.

When did Jesus EVER condemn homosexuality? Both hetero-and homosexual promiscuity was condemened, but there is no indication that the condition of homosexual orentiation was known. One disturbing OT story describes David's love for Jonathan as that surpassing the love of women. It was a unique description of male-male love nowhere else mentioned in that manner.

Those parents who have a gay child are the only ones qualified to speak of this very personally. How does a loving parent react with such news? With a loving son or daughter, all the rest of us can never know or fully understand until it hits home. We should listen to both them and the homosexual among us; and be willing to truly listen rather than condemn. They have already felt deeply condemned by their church, why must we sinners condemen others' sins?

[Carrol Grady]

Thanks for being so understanding, Elaine.

Most people dismiss the David/Jonathan story, but when you read through the entire story, open to previously undiscerned nuances... For example, it says Jonathan loved David as his own soul and took off his clothes and gave them to David. And when Jonathan informed Saul that he gave David permission to be absent from a feast (where Saul planned to kill him), Saul burst out, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" Shame and nakedness are terms used in connection with sexual relations in the Bible. So what is this all about? We cannot really know, and customs were quite different back then, but this whole story seems to have some sexual overtones. At the very least, it describes an extremely close, loving relationship between two men.

But what seems to me even more interesting is the story of the centurian whose servant Jesus healed. It was customary in those days when Roman soldiers were serving far from home for them to take along a boy lover. The word the centurian uses to refer to his other servants is "doulos" which means servant, but in referring to his sick servant he uses "entimos" (dear or valuable) and "pais" (my boy), a word which in other writing has been used for a young lover. Again, we can't be sure this is what is meant, but it is likely that Jesus knew the customs and the possibility that this is the case, yet he healed the servant and praised the faith of the centurion. If Jesus was aware, this doesn't necessarily mean he approved of this kind of relationship, but it could be an example of how we should treat others.

[Peter]

Carrol:

"Johnny, arguing from silence is not convincing to me. God addressed issues that people were prepared to understand, and when Paul wrote the Jewish people and early Christians had no basis for understanding the scientific concept of homosexual orientation."

If Jesus had thought people would understand naturalistic evolution would have have told them that he didn't infact create everything. Why then did he repeatedly keep the Sabbath, and therefore admit the truth of the scripture.

"All of these actions are sin because they harm other persons. "

Humanistic morality is a very worldly concept, with no basis in biblical truth. Taking the second great commandment, to love others as oneself, and not taking the first one, loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul, is dangerous. How can you love God with all yourself if you are committing that to someone else in a doubtful situation, ie, not the perfect marriage between male and female, that is actually expressed repeatedly throughout scripture.

How do you reconcile the strength of the love for humans with the perfection that God demands? Are you attempting to rationalise away a sin because it is a natural tendency, and not because it is infact something that God *intended* for us to experience.

[arlyn]

Dear Elaine,
just wanted to sneak in a hello, welcome back, I missed you!

[Joselito Coo]

Echoing the welcome to Elaine. My mother was born the same year as you and Tom. She lived only long enough to witness my graduation from our mission college.

[Daneen Akers]

Yes--good to see Elaine! I haven't had a chance to read this study yet (but I will), so I won't comment further yet--except to say that it sounds like you are arguing for perfection theology, Peter.

[Elaine Nelson]

Thanks for the welcome back. I missed everyone here, but was on an almost 3-week cruise through the Mediterranean (tough, but someone's got to go). Then a funeral for family member who was struck dead while driving to the aiport for this cruise.

These conversations are exhilirating and keep the neurons active!

[Carrol Grady]

Peter, regarding our most beloved Sabbath doctrine, Jesus defended his disciples' "reaping and threshing" as they passed through a grainfield on Sabbath, which was denounced by the Pharisees, by saying, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Is that "situational ethics"? I believe if he were here today, he would paraphrase his statement by saying, "Marriage was made for humans, not humans for marriage."

Why would God withhold all the "non-sexual" blessings of marriage from people who don't fit the heterosexual mold? I suppose there must be some fallacy in my previous point about people who are unable to obey the Creation command, "Be fruitful and multiply." Why don't we consider them sinners?

The Bible was written in a different culture and historical context. Society was not then ready to hear any counsel on homosexual relationships, something that we are ready to consider today (witness the intense interest on this blog). If we are going to argue from silence, we could also say that Scripture says nothing that condemns committed homosexual relationships.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Carrol

Isn't homosexual behavior taking a gift of God for a selish purpose? Tom

Of course that is not the only sexual distorton.

[Shawn Brace]

The illogical arguments being presented on this thread are mind-boggling to me, beginning with Elaine's statement that "Those parents who have a gay child are the only ones qualified to speak of this very personally. . . " This thread is not intended to discuss people's personal feelings or experiences, as valuable as those may be. It is a discussion on what the Bible says relating to homosexuality.

Secondly, it is highly problematic in the first place to propose that only people who experience something can speak educatedly on it. Should a jury or judge not be allowed to reach a verdict on a murder trial, because they've never fathered a murderer? If we are to approach something objectively, seeking truth, let us do so, and then discuss the implications of it afterwards.

Thirdly, there is no way that anyone can petition the Bible to justify homosexuality. From a purely objective point of view, there is not one positive thing the Bible says about homosexuality. The texts that allegedly only speak about homosexual prostitution and/or rape, are not simply speaking about these things. Scholars can hem and haw and try to do gymnastics to prove otherwise, but honest exegesis must admit that the biblical witness condemns homosexual practice in toto.

Fourthly, to say that the Genesis account does not inherently contradict homosexuality because it would have to also condemn singleness is terribly illogical. The whole biblical witness speaks out against homosexuality, whereas both Paul and Jesus Himself promotes singleness.

Fifthly, the popular reference to David and Jonathan's relationship does not work. Much of the Hebrew language utilized in the passages describing their relationship is also used elsewhere in scripture, and especially in the very surrounding passages, to describe the love that other non-homosexual individuals had for each other, and, for Israel's love for David himself. Scripture is abundantly clear that David and Jonathan were both married and had children.

Sixthly, if one wants to argue that scripture's attitude towards homosexuality is no longer valid because it is ancient, that is one thing. But don't try to make scripture say what it doesn't say (and, as an aside, homosexuality wasn't necessarily condemned in other Ancient Near Eastern nations during the OT, so we cannot say that God condemned it because society wasn't ready for it).

And lastly, I hope that we can discuss this subject (what the Bible says about homosexuality) without taking it personally or being subjective. No one is implying that we should treat such persons without love or compassion. We do, indeed, all need God's grace. But I would hope we could discuss such topics biblically and objectively, without letting personal experience cloud our quest for what scripture says. I have nothing but love for individuals with such an orientation, and have found beautiful fellowship with them. But this should not prevent me from seeking to ascertain what the Bible says on the subject, or any subject that contradicts a lifestyle that anyone is practicing - whether homosexual or heterosexual.

[Carrol Grady]

I suspect it is an exercise in futility to continue responding, but I just have to answer once more:

Tom, what is selfish about loving someone and wanting to live with them for a lifetime?

Sometimes, I think we're having a problem of semantics. My definition of homosexuality is that it refers not to behavior, but to a different orientation with which some people are born. Shawn, you use "homosexuality" throughout your objections as if you mean "homosexual behavior," which is not a synonym for "homosexual orientation." The Bible does NOT address today's understanding of orientation.

Re: the story of David and Jonathan, I don't think it's necessary to argue in favor of that being an example of homosexual love. We really cannot know what it meant in that society. But I would like to point out that being married and having children proves absolutely nothing.

[Carrol Grady]

PS "No one is implying that we should treat such persons without love or compassion."

You cannot treat people with love and compassion unless you are willing to try to understand them - love and compassion are simply empty, mocking words.

[Robert]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I do find it a bit amusing to see theological liberals proof-texting their arguments! Does a liberal really care that much what the Bible says? Is it only useful as a tool to try to convince conservatives/fundamentalists on their arguments? Maybe a more fruitful tack would be to discuss what evolution says about homosexuality. I'm curious to know how homosexual traits are passed on, and not weeded out by natural selection. I assume much has been written on the topic, but like I said, I don't have a horse in this race, so it is a casual curiosity and I haven't researched or heard about this aspect.

[Al]

Hi,
If I may add something here-Carrol has some very valid points about David & Jonathan; and the story about the centurian. I have alway felt upon reading the narrative of David & Jonathan, that there was more to this relationship than was written. Like Carrol I am not willing to say it was sexual in nature but certainly this was an extemely close male to male realationship even one of deep love-this the bible does not condemn. I say this because of the Adventist Church's own theology. Which states over and over again that our personal realationship to Christ is like that of a marriage-being married to Christ if you will. I have often smiled to myself when I have heard preachers from the pulpit say this and when I have even read it in the Sabbath School quarterly. I wonder if the church really knows what it is suggesting. I wonder this because it is one thing for a WOMAN to conceptulize being married to Jesus (who WAS a M-A-N and according to SDA theology STILL is) it is quite another for a hetero man to conceptualize this. If taken to its logical conclusion a straight man has to conceptualize entering into very deep committed relationship with a God in human M-A-N form,(and according to SDA teachings Jesus is supposed to be very, very real to us.) The only way this is different from marriage, in my view is there is no sex involved. But in every other way, it would be the same as a same-sex marriage, if you please. And there is nothing wrong with that. If this is not what SDA theology is teaching then please inform. I don't believe the bible even judges the nature of David & Jonathan's relationship it just tells us about it to some extent. As for some of the intimate details about David & Jonathan and that of the centurian and his boy, well... the bible does not give every detail and we are left to draw our own conclusions. And I have.

One final point, scripture is written, read and interpreted within the context of many things- time, culture, nationality,gender, etc. It is often interpreted from a male sexual point of view. Men, will always act to protect their sexuality no matter what-even in the context of religion (ie. female ordination as a threat male power dominance thereby sexual power/identity.) An insecure hetro-male will never allow for the biblical understanding that another man can be so deeply committed to another male that they would want to spend a lifetime together and that it be okay. It would be too much of a threat to their understanding of what it means to be male or masculine for that matter. Finally, I would suggest to those who are challenged by having a same sex orientation, be very careful about listening too closely to heterosexual male spiritual authority figures. They are often not secure enough in the their own understanding of their own sexuality to help you traverse, through scripture, the complexity of yours. The only one I have found so far who can help in this respect is the M-A-N I am married to- Jesus Christ. We have a very deep man to man relationship, very much like like being married.

Al

[Nic Samojluk]

For thousands of years homosexuality was considered as a deviant behavior. I just consulted my dictionary, and this term, "deviant" is defined as a departure from the norm.

The norm was established by the Lord when He created a male and a female. I conclude from this that homosexuality represents a deviant behavior.

I do not see the logic of justifying deviant behavior, unless the person was born with both male and female genitalia.

Being born with a homosexual orientation should not be reason enough, I believe, for homosexual practice. Some individuals are born with an orientation towards pedophilia. Does this mean that this deviant orientation should be physically expressed.

Children to not feel they are harmed when older man get physically intimate with them, unless they are trained to avoid physical contact with adults. The trauma usually blossoms when they get older.

Many older men sexually abuse small children and feel there is no harm. They feel there is a fair mutually accepted fair exchange. They satisfy their sexual deviant cravings, and the children get what they like: atencion, candies or a trinket.

Experience has shown that most homosexual relationships do not normally last long, because they were never meant to conform to the norm established by the Creator.

[Wondering]

"...All of these actions are sin because they harm other persons..."

Posted by: Carrol Grady | 25 October 2007 at 14:55
*****

Mrs. Grady,
Just like human beings to think that sin is all about us.

"Mere Christianity" talks about this strange conception of right and wrong ("I'm not hurting anyone!").

[Wondering]

Experience has shown that most homosexual relationships do not normally last long, because they were never meant to conform to the norm established by the Creator.

Posted by: Nic Samojluk | 26 October 2007 at 22:52
****

Nic,
Homosexuals do not like to be compared to pedophiles--at all.

I understand where you are coming from in general, but I believe that there may be myriads of other reasons why homosexual relationships tend to be shorter than heterosexual ones.
I would be wary of saying that the "short-livedness" is any argument for the wrongness of any such lifestyle.

[Shawn Brace]

"You cannot treat people with love and compassion unless you are willing to try to understand them - love and compassion are simply empty, mocking words."

Again, this is a biblical discussion of the issues, not a discussion about how homosexuals feel. We are trying to understand what the Bible says, not what a group of people feels. Obviously, there is a time and place for such a discussion, but we are trying to do with the facts first, feelings second.

Also, does "trying to understand" someone imply that I must accept what they do? My wife may try to understand why I neglect to make the bed in the morning, but does she have to necessarily accept my behavior also?

[Shawn Brace]

"Could someone please tell me what there is about loving someone of the same sex (if you are unable to have this bond with someone of the opposite sex) that harms anyone, or why you think God would consider this a sin, especially a sin in the same category as the others I mentioned."

Question: does it harm anyone for a father and daughter to engage in sexual activity, assuming they are both consenting adults?

[Carolyn]

It has been suggested that I am selfish because of how I express my sexuality. I have been compared to a pedophile that preys on innocent children. My mutually committed love relationship with my partner of 5 years has been compared to incest.

I would like to suggest alternative behavior to judge me by.

Judge me on how I choose to honor the one I love.

Judge me against consistent moral principles such as fidelity and responsibility.

Judge me on what I do with my life. Judge me on the quality of interactions with my coworkers. Watch me play with my nephews and help my sister cook a family meal with my sweetheart by my side. Watch me care for my sweetheart when she is sick and needs a loving touch.

Listen to my sweetheart tell me how proud she is of me and our relationship. Listen to her read her niece a story with finger puppets.

The bible is an incomplete and sometimes erroneous guide for moral living. Christians have collectively decided that whole portions of the bible are not appropriate for our lives today. Some of us ignore portions while elevating other portions is ways that feed our social and religious agendas. Christians rightly disagree about prohibitions against eating shell fish, for example. Levitical law prohibits it, Paul says its ok to eat everything. Slavery is consistently reinforced in scripture as morally sound but most of us reject it today as morally repugnant.

I am not asking for understanding, I am asking for acceptance of my sexuality because I am a responsible loving partner. I have taken my sexuality and used it to the highest moral standards possible.

[Carrol Grady]

Peter, if people had been discussion the idea of evolution when the Bible was written, no doubt Jesus would have addressed it. If homosexual orientation had been understood in those days, I expect it would have been addressed in the Bible.

Al, I appreciate your insight about the relationship of Jesus to the church. I had never thought of it that way before.

Robert, there are many possible causes of homosexuality. "Gay" genes are passed on through the mother. As I'm sure you must know gay men frequently marry women, either to present a "normal" front, or in the hope that doing "what is right" will be rewarded with God taking away their homosexuality. Fluctuations of the level of male hormones in the womb at a particular point in development can result in the default female brain not being rewired for attraction to females. Such fluctuations may be caused by stress in the mother, certain medications, the activation of certain genes in the male fetus, etc. And some mothers are believed to build up a resistance to male hormones, thus limiting their production. These are some of the causes currently being studied. There are probably more.

Nic, I don't think people are born with an orientation to pedophilia. This is usually the result of having been abused themselves as children, thus arresting their emotional development at that stage. And I don't know where you get the idea that children don't mind! Have you heard the stories of people who were abused as children? It was so horrible for them that some of them learned to "go somewhere" in their minds and disassociate themselves with what was happening to them.

And your assertion that homosexual relationships don't last very long is not true. In spite of the lack of social and religious support, many homosexual relationships last as long as heterosexual ones. I personally know one gay couple who will be celebrating their 50th anniversary next year, and many who have been together for 20-30 years. And please don't suggest that these are not faithful relationships.

Shawn, you asked if understanding means you have to accept "what they do." You are reducing people to a sexual act. I am talking about who they are, not what they do. You also asked, "does it harm anyone for a father and daughter to engage in sexual activity, assuming they are both consenting adults?" I would suggest it is harming the mother, it is harming any children that might come of the union, and it destroys the normal father/daughter relationship.

[Dennis Burt]

Ah, the old "God says, but I think..." theological gymnastics some folks go thru to try and prove a point! How God must sigh, and the angels pity us poor sinful beings.

[Kent Kingston]

I've just read Justin's treatise. Very interesting. Three points (two Biblical, one not):
* I'm not sure Justin's interpretation of "lying with a man as one lies with a woman" (Leviticus) can be so easily dismissed as referring to abusive sex. Is it possible that the suffix "as with a woman" was needed to very accurately describe the behaviour being condemned? Words like "lie" and "know" are well-known euphemisms for sex in the Old Testament. But using such a euphemism out of its usual heterosexual context may call for extra clarification.
* One text that no one seems to ever mention in discussing this issue is...
Matthew 19:11-13(NIV)
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

This passage is in the context of a discussion about singleness vs marriage. I wouldn't have thought this had anything to do with homosexuality until I read City of Joy where the lives of traditional song and dance troupes of Indian eunuchs in the 20th Century are discussed. It seemed from that book that men chose to become eunuchs out of an awareness that there was something sexually different about them.

Thousands of years and kilometres away from 1st Century Palestine, but traditional Oriental cultures develop slowly and their are commonalities between them. Is it possible that Jesus is expressing some kind of understanding for people with a homosexual or transexual orientation in Matt 19:11-13? "Some were born that way" - just a genital disfigurement? Maybe this refers to a homosexual orientation from birth. "Some were made that way by men" - is this simply talking about castration or is it possible that it could also include people whose sexual orientation is affected by trauma, such as child sexual abuse?

Maybe I'm applying too much of my own 21st Century interpretation here...

* I agree with what Shawn said above: an argument from the point of view that "it doesn't harm anyone" is not a test of morality. Otherwise necrophilia, bestiality and incest between consenting adults would all be kosher, so long as no one gets hurt. Ditto pornography and prostitution, where some argue that the women involved are empowered rather than exploited. Sorry, this just doesn't wash with me.

And dare I bring it up... what about anal sex (in a homosexual OR heterosexual context)? I'm not a doctor but I understand that the anal membranes are very delicate and can be damaged easily. I struggle to see anal sex as a loving practice if it has a chance of producing a prolapsed rectum or other medical problems. I may be showing my ignorance here and I know there's more to male homosexuality than anal sex, but someone has to point out the elephant in the room.

[Dennis Burt]

Gotta throw this into the fray, it will likely ruffle a feather or two, but here goes.... I have a good friend who consideres himself a good SDA most of the time, believes Jesus is coming soon, believes in the Gift of Prophecy, etc. He has been in and out of the gay lifestyle for most of his 50+ years. He is trying to leave it again, he believes in his heart of hearts it is wrong. He has been in the Folsom Street scene in SF, and in long term committed relationships, been there, done that, has all the t-shirts to prove it! He has told me repeatedly that he feels from after all the years of being in it, trying to understand it, etc that it is just a form of devil oppression at best, and more likely demon possession at worst. It is a choice, cultivated, not inherited. I am not gay, can't say I've been there done that like he can, so I can only speculate that what he says may have a grain of substance. Now lets sit back and watch the convoluted reasoning and illogic application that takes place......

[question]

Will there be homosexuality in heaven?

[Chris Blake]

Will there be sexual relationships on the new earth?

(Carrol, you make good sense nearly all the time. Thanks for that.)

[Dr Steve Parker]

I went and had a readof Justin Cannon's essay on 'The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality'. He has provided some background and information that I hadn't considered before. I would really like some discussion on the exegesis by Cannon. Where is he incorrect? What information has be provided that is inaccurate? Where is he illogical? I think critiquing Cannon's exegesis would be a good way to proceed with this discussion.

[Raymond Roccograndi]

I suggest that people take into account the fact that the Bible is not a document about Sexuality. I have given this topic serious amount of study, but by no means am I an authority on the subject. My guardian is a Lutheran minster of some thirty years of service to the Lutheran Church. He is also a homosexual male and has been in a committed relationship for over twenty years (long time, isn't it?). I have had several teachers in high school that have been in similar long-term committed relationships, so the statement that homosexual relationships do not last long is unfactual and ignorant. Many of the homosexuals that I have known have been more Christian than some conservative, orthodox believers that I know.

Sexuality is a gift from God. Liberals, like conservatives take the Bible seriously, so seriously that we understand that our preconceived notions (conservative theology) cannot be the final authority on the matter, that constant study must be preformed to better understand the Holy Scriptures. One axiomatic part of the Bible is that it is not a stagnant document, we must be able to let God direct us further into understanding Holy Scriptures as His Spirit leads our scientific innovations and studies.

It must be emphasized again that the Bible is about God, NOT about sexuality.

For those who take the Genesis 2:21-25 Creation Story literally, consider that if you truly interpret the text as saying that a it is "natural" for a man and a woman to come together to create new life, then by implication homosexual couples are thought of as "unnatural." A problem with this belief is that it then condemns all types of relationships:

1. couples who are unable to have children
2. couples who are too old to have children
3. couples who choose not to have children
4. people who are single

Are these relationships, or lack of relationships, "unnatural?"

Genesis 19:1-4 The Story of Sodom

This story is not about sex, it is about God. Jesus and five OT prophets all speak of this sins that lead to the destruction of Sodom and not one mentions homosexuality. Additionally the conservative evangelist Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality as the cause of the destruction of Sodom.

To shed some further light on this, Ezekiel 16:48-49 reads, "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abomination in God's eyes."

Sodomites are not homosexuals, they are those who are selfish; those who are rich and do not give to the poor; those who when having plenty of food forget the hungry; those who care not for the trouble of others; those who start wars and send other people's children to fight them; those who have plenty and still want more.

The sexual act that appears in Sodom is gang rape -and homosexuals just like heterosexuals are strongly against gang rape as much as anyone.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 The Holiness Code

The Holiness Code today is understood by many Christians to have been a product of the environment of the time it was written, some 3,000 years ago. With the exception of homosexuality virtually all of the other laws are ignored by Christians today.

Romans 1:26-27

Understood in context Paul is not condemning homosexuality, but rather the passions of the male and female priests that were using sex as an offering to Roman gods. Please see the Soulforce video 'There's a Wideness in God's Mercy' where the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes discuses this. Dr. Smedes is a Christian author and ethicist.

1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10

'Malokolis' and 'arsenokoitai' - what do these terms mean? Greek scholars believe that malakois probably meant 'effeminate call boys.' NRSV translates it 'male prostitutes.' Greek scholars are still unsure of the term arsenokoitai and its connotations, so to say that it means 'homosexuality' is without merit and lacks any intellectual credibility.

These are some of my thoughts after much prayerful study and dialouge on this matter.

For more study on the Homosexuality and Christian Community please read:

"Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Revised and Updated: Positive Christian Response"
by: Letha Dawson Scanzoni, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality"
by: John Boswell

"Taking a Chance on God"
by: John J. McNeil

"The Church and the Homosexual"
by: John J. McNeil

"What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage"
by David G. Myers & Letha Dawson Scanzoni

"A Biblical Defense Guide For Gays and Those Who Love Them"
by: Graig Bettendorf

"Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explore the Myths, Heal the Church"
by: Jack Rogers

"Homosexuality and Christian Community"
edited by: Choon-Leong Seow

"The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love"
by John Shelby Spong

"Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Religious Right"
by: Mel White

"Coming Out Spiritually: the Next Step"
by: Christian de la Huerta

"Why You Should Give a Damn About Gay Marriage"
by: Davina Kotulski

"Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America"
by: Mel White

For more information about the History of Homosexuality please read:

"Homophobia: a History"
by: Byrne Fone

"The Columbia Anthology of Gay Literature"
edited by: Byrne Fone

"Making Gay History"
by: Eric Marcus

"Out if the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present"
by: Neil Miller

"Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay & Lesbian Past"
edited by: Martin Bauml Duberman

"Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights"
by Eric Marcus

"The Construction of Homosexuality"
by: David F. Greenberg

For a better understanding about Christian theology please read:

"A New Christianity for a New World"
by: John Shelby Spong

"Living Gnosis: a Practical Guide to Gnostic Christianity"
by: Tau Malachi

"The God We Never Knew"
by: Marcus J. Borg

"Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas"
by: Elaine Pagels

"Interpreting the Sacred: Ways of Viewing Religion"
by: William E. Paden

"Religious Worlds: Comparative Study of Religion"
by: William E. Paden

"Understanding the Bible"
by: John A. Buehrens

For more understanding about the history of God and religion please read:

"The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions"
by: Karen Armstrong

"God: a Biography"
by: Jack Miles

"A History of God: the 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam"
by: Karen Armstrong

"God"
by: Alexander Waugh

[Daneen Akers]

Thanks for giving me a good reading list Raymond! Several are on my shelf, and a few are ones I've been meaning to get to.

I finally feel able to comment on this thread because I had the time to read Justin Cannon's treatise that Alex started this post with. It's highly readable and a good place to start to get a deeper, Biblical understanding of this issue.

A quote from Shawn above feels like it needs to be addressed. He says: "Thirdly, there is no way that anyone can petition the Bible to justify homosexuality. From a purely objective point of view, there is not one positive thing the Bible says about homosexuality. The texts that allegedly only speak about homosexual prostitution and/or rape, are not simply speaking about these things. Scholars can hem and haw and try to do gymnastics to prove otherwise, but honest exegesis must admit that the biblical witness condemns homosexual practice in toto."

Shawn--have you read the Bible study posted here? I'm bothered by statements that say that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as we know it today, but yet feel completely uninformed by the actual document we are discussing which is addressing that very issue. We've always been taught that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality, but does it? Just as for centuries we were taught that the Bible clearly allows morally upright slavery, but Bible-believing Christians (would we dismiss them as "liberals" today?) finally asked themselves if that’s what it really taught, or if the historical context of the times needed to be examined. We’re seeing the same thing in regards to the role of women in the church. There is no doubt that Paul strongly preached against women in leadership roles, but now we’re wondering if in the context of his times that belief needs to be adjusted.

As you pointed out elsewhere, it does come down to a hermeneutic principle. Do we take verses from the Bible and cut and paste to apply to modern times? What do we do when the Bible conflicts with modern understandings and/or social realities—and I’m not just talking about OT holiness codes (divorce is a very good example of this). I’ve come to see the Bible as a trajectory—we can follow its trajectory and see, especially through the life of Christ, where God is leading His people, but it does require looking a context, which is exactly what this Bible study does so well. (I especially enjoy his attention to literary conventions, something often completely overlooked.)

One last thought about how frequently this blog has compared homosexuals to pedophiles. This is not only offensive, but a gross misrepresentation of all that we know about homosexuality and pedophilia. There is no connection.

And Nic—people are not born with a predilection to pedophilia—that is simply not at all supported in the science. Your comments are a red herring to the issue at hand and even do great damage to gays and lesbians reading this blog. This is the type of ignorance that promotes hate crimes against gays. (I’m sure you don’t mean them in this manner, but it’s hate crimes against gays are a far-too real reality that we need to be careful not to flame.)

Carrol—Thank you for so succinctly extinguishing the argument that incest would/should be kosher if we accept that that loving, committed homosexual relationships aren’t spoken to in the Bible. Of course they hurt a myriad of people (mother, potential offspring, the Father/Daughter relationship itself).

Also, after a bit of a break from the blog this weekend, I came back today and was quite appalled that we continue to just focus on how people have sex. Really, are we truly discussing the pros/cons of anal sex? (This seems to clearly demonstrate how much fear and ignorance fuels this issue.) And I thought liberals were supposed to the ones not keeping the discussion grounded in the Bible!

[Anonymous]

I was horrified by the comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality (which was brimming with faulty argument). To all the gays and lesbians on this board: I am truly sorry that was said, I definitely do not feel that way. The many homosexual individuals I know are equal or superior to me in every single way. I am honored that they would even want to be around ME. I am just so sorry that was said.

[Joselito Coo]

"I suggest that people take into account the fact that the Bible is not a document about Sexuality."

If so, won't it be logical for us to agree not to cite Scriptures (after all there's so much disagreement how we should interpret the same) but approach the subject of human sexuality from another angle?