Is homosexuality an abomination?

[anotheratheisthere]

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

[East of Eden]

You are the one alleging that 2,000 years of Church history has been wrongly misinterpreted, it is your obligation to show otherwise. You're about asking me to prove when the Bible says white, it really means white.

In other words, you can't even show that it is 2000 years of church history interpreting that way. I would love to see you provide evidence that those passages were interpreted that way , oh.. let's give you a break and say pre Martin Luther.

I suggest you actually back up your claim, rather than avoid the claim, and appeal to an authority that you don't even show had that point of view back in the day.

Please support your claim, or withdraw it.

OK, let's start with this one:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 6:9 The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.


Here are a few pre-Luther views of the church on homosexuality from Wikipedia:

Many surviving writings of the Church Fathers about homosexual behavior describe it as sinful.[5] In his fourth homily on Romans,[6] St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:
“ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. �
The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[7] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). There is some question whether this reference is to homosexual activity or bestiality [8] (or both). The earliest Latin versions, however, translate the word in both senses.[9] In any event, sodomy and bestiality are often condemned side-by-side in Christian writings of this era, usually with reference to these Latin translations.[10]
In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who aped the role of a bride.[11] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[12] The Christian emperor Justinian (527–565) made those who would now be called "homosexuals" a scape goat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."[13]

Well, you showed there was a vague reference that is disrupted, then you talking about emperors of the roman empire, not the church. .. The emperor is not the pope, in case you didn't notice.

Here you go:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... osexuality

"Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful."
Wikipedia

Probably because the Bible says it is......

[Autodidact]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

The verses have been posted. If you have an alternate argument where blue means red, let's hear it.

You know that the word "homosexuality" does not appear in the Bible, right? So the question is, what do those words mean, since they don't mean that?

Does it make sense to you that it's fine with your God for women to be lesbians, but prohibited for men to be gay? Yet only the latter is prohibited. Odd, no? Maybe it's not homosexuality that's prohibited at all? Maybe it's something else. Let's do some study of Greek and Hebrew and find out. What say you?

btw, I assume that you do not follow the ancient taboos in Leviticus, right? So we don't have to deal with that. You take your commandments from Jesus and the New Testament, am I right?

[East of Eden]

The link contains explanations. It isn't very likely the church had the interpretation wrong for 2,000 years with the real meaning only discovered today by homosexualists with an axe to grind.

Really?? Argument by link? How about if YOU PROVE IT , rather than make unsubstantiated claims, or just point to a link and say 'Go read this'.

How about looking at those passages in context.. right here, rather than just pointing to some link to a site that has a prejudicial agenda to push.

Let's see if you can back up your claims in your own words, rather than go link to some website and say 'Go read this'.

Are you incapable of reading? Personally, I consider your contention that the NT says nothing about homosexual activity to be so ridiculous it isn't worth wasting my time on more than I have posted on.

So you concede his point? Or did you have an argument to refute it?

The verses have been posted. If you have an alternate argument where blue means red, let's hear it.

You know that the word "homosexuality" does not appear in the Bible, right? So the question is, what do those words mean, since they don't mean that?

Of course the word 'homosexuality' wasn't in the Bible, the word is only about 100 years old. The concept certainly was. Do you think homosexuality was unknown when the Bible was written?

Does it make sense to you that it's fine with your God for women to be lesbians, but prohibited for men to be gay?

It isn't 'fine'.

Yet only the latter is prohibited. Odd, no?

Just wrong, and we've been over this before.

Romans 1:26-27 ESV

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.


I would also argue that when the Bible mentions 'fornication' (Jesus did that), it includes all sex outside of God's plan of one man and one woman in a marriage relationship.

Maybe it's not homosexuality that's prohibited at all? Maybe it's something else. Let's do some study of Greek and Hebrew and find out. What say you?

btw, I assume that you do not follow the ancient taboos in Leviticus, right? So we don't have to deal with that. You take your commandments from Jesus and the New Testament, am I right?

Not completely, you can find elements of the moral law in the OT, and these were reinforced in the NT, homosexual activity being a perfect example.

[Darias]

Hey I just wanted to post what I heard on the news

Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, I think this should be exposed. Christians especially should be aware of this trend to hate homosexuals and should be, more than anyone else, against hateful attitudes towards homosexuals.

For example, this kid singing in church -- a kid who doesn't really understand what he's singing -- and the church's reaction to it --- that should be condemned. Or at least people should be aware of it:

[center][youtube][/youtube] [/center]

The Bible's right, somebody's wrong.

The Bible's right, somebody's wrong.

Romans one, twenty six and twenty seven;

Ain't no homos gonna make it to Heaven.

People who take seriously the notion of an eternal torment without mercy should not jump to applause about "sinners" going there.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hey I just wanted to post what I heard on the news

Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not, I think this should be exposed. Christians especially should be aware of this trend to hate homosexuals and should be, more than anyone else, against hateful attitudes towards homosexuals.

For example, this kid singing in church -- a kid who doesn't really understand what he's singing -- and the church's reaction to it --- that should be condemned. Or at least people should be aware of it:

[center][youtube][/youtube] [/center]

The Bible's right, somebody's wrong.

The Bible's right, somebody's wrong.

Romans one, twenty six and twenty seven;

Ain't no homos gonna make it to Heaven.

People who take seriously the notion of an eternal torment without mercy should not jump to applause about "sinners" going there.

What's worse is that having been introduced to the notion at such a young age, and being applauded for it, he may well hold to it his entire life.

Shame on the folks who put him up to this.

Despicable.

[Haven]

That is truly an abomination. I could care little about what the Bible says, but this hate has to stop.

[Darias]

That is truly an abomination. I could care little about what the Bible says, but this hate has to stop.

Here's another more recent piece of news.

http://news.yahoo.com/pastor-flesh-kind ... 12183.html

The sermon was supposed to be about all sins being equal. Nevertheless homosexuality was given emphasis; and while adultery was compared to it, adultery defined in the sermon was a one time event not a lifestyle as the NT defines the "sin." (According to the NT the second wife would be illegitimate and you would be in sin for as long as you were married to her). I believe the pastor said adultery had been accepted by the church and society but his main point was about homosexuality, and he was warning about reacting to it in a bad way...

but I don't think that excuses him from saying "kill them all! right? I'll be honest with you, my flesh kind of likes that idea"

I mean in Christianity, believers differentiate between their better nature (their spirit or God' spirit) and their flesh which they believe to be wholly evil.

But my flesh thinks that that pastor's flesh has a serious problem. I mean, what, if any, part of a person would want to kill a bunch of people? That seems unnatural to me. Seems immoral. Who seriously thinks that? Only people with psychological and violent tendencies, or people who hate and fear others could ever like that feeling. IDK.

I don't know what to make of all this anymore. I mean part of me thinks these folks are giving the majority of Christians a bad name, and the other part of me questions if there is a dividing line between Fundamentalist Christianity and Homophobia; it's as if homophobia has become a tenant of Fundamentalist Christian faith. I find myself asking, where does Homophobia end and where does Christianity begin? The legacy that Jesus left behind would not be recognizable by him I don't think.

And the most frustrating thing of all is that Fundamental Evangelical belief is my heritage, whether I want it or not. I live in the Bible belt and I was raised with this version of Christianity. I have a Jesus fish on my car that I'm almost ashamed of, not because of what it's meant to represent (Jesus and the Golden Rule), but because of what it has come to represent (Hellfire and Gay Hatred).

I still choose to this day to label myself a Christian (albeit a non-theist one), and right now I'm seriously starting to question whether or not I should maintain that label. I don't want to be associated with the likes of these pastors and their ignorant hateful ideas. But idk, I don't want to take the easy way out and become just an Agnostic.

I mean, I guess, if everyone with any compassion left the Christian faith because of the ignorant people within it, then there'd be no one left but ignorant and hateful people in the faith... still it's tough. I don't know of any Christians who remotely think like me. I don't know any other Christians who aren't against gay rights. I'm sure they exist, somewhere. I hope so. I just wish they'd speak up more often.

[Goat]

Here you go:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... osexuality

"Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful."
Wikipedia

Probably because the Bible says it is......

Can you show , well, something a little more in line with actual Catholic teaching, rather than a rather right winged personal web site .. Well, from what I see, 'Catholic Answers" doesn't have a good rep for being scholarly.

Not only that.. but much of those quotes are about sex with young boys.. . not homosexuality..

[East of Eden]

Here you go:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... osexuality

"Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful."
Wikipedia

Probably because the Bible says it is......

Can you show , well, something a little more in line with actual Catholic teaching, rather than a rather right winged personal web site .. Well, from what I see, 'Catholic Answers" doesn't have a good rep for being scholarly.

Ad hominem, without addressing the quotes from the church fathers, what you said you were interested in.

Not only that.. but much of those quotes are about sex with young boys.. . not homosexuality..

It said especially sex with young boys was prohibited, as was homosexual activity among adults.

Look, I don't enjoy talking about this so much, but it is the area where Christianity is being attacked, much as some tried to justify segregation in the past. Martin Luther said if you preach the Gospel in every area but the one where it is being challenged, you aren't really being faithful.

[Goat]

Here you go:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... osexuality

"Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful."
Wikipedia

Probably because the Bible says it is......

Can you show , well, something a little more in line with actual Catholic teaching, rather than a rather right winged personal web site .. Well, from what I see, 'Catholic Answers" doesn't have a good rep for being scholarly.

Ad hominem, without addressing the quotes from the church fathers, what you said you were interested in.

Not only that.. but much of those quotes are about sex with young boys.. . not homosexuality..

It said especially sex with young boys was prohibited, as was homosexual activity among adults.

Look, I don't enjoy talking about this so much, but it is the area where Christianity is being attacked, much as some tried to justify segregation in the past. Martin Luther said if you preach the Gospel in every area but the one where it is being challenged, you aren't really being faithful.

If you want to whine about 'ad homenin'.. I am not saying that they are wrong because they are catholic. I am saying they are not scholarly and wrong because the information the present is often not valid. That is the 'oh, that is an ad hominen'.

I could say by using them as a source, your doing the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority'.

Do you have something more that 'Because they said so'?? How about a scholarly piece from a non-evangelistic university. (I won't accept anything from the Dallas theological seminary for example).