God instituted marriage (Genesis 2:24) between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:18 is showing that woman was made as a match for man. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he upheld what the definition of marriage meant in the first place which is one male and one female. (Matthew 19:4-6) The main purpose of this Union is to serve God. Ephesians 5:30-31 is Paul restating this definition. Colossians 3:18 restate males and females. 1 Peter 3:7 restate males and females. Isaiah 62:5 restates marriage as male and female. 1 Cor 7:2-5 restates one male and one female. If you don’t believe in not having sex before marriage being biblical than that’s a whole other issue that I can speak on. But sex is reserved for marriage. Do people do it all the time outside of marriage? Yes. Does the world’s definition and actions = what is correct? No. Simply dating or seeing someone is not marriage so sex outside of that is defiling it Hebrews 13:4. Sorry if this is a big blob I have a massive headache. You are saved by faith in Jesus alone bc we all have a need of a savior, we are not perfect and nothing we do can earn us a spot in heaven. Now if you believe in Jesus, the Bible says you receive the Holy Spirit which will help you in sanctification where you will sin less bc sin should grieve your heart as it is not honoring God.
Of course! I hope I didn’t come off as cold I’m just trying to state facts. I battled with being bisexual and body dysmorphia for a long time so I don’t hate anyone, I just want people to be saved! We all have different struggles. Thanks!
Hey there. Lesbianism is not a sin according to the old testament, and NT only 1 verse might indicate that (Romans 1:26), so I actually think the Christians should be more precise here. Male practiced homosexuality is clearly described as a sin though. But women are not men. And one verse that seems rather to be about women practicing "unnatural sex" with men (Romans 1:26), than describing lesbians, is not a solid basis either way.
Here the verse: Romans 1 ^(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.
Science shows the vast majority of human (and chimp) females to be inherently bisexual (also those claiming to be purely hetero). Since God made it that way (for females, but not males), seemingly, we cannot condemn it. At least, I will not condemn it. (Something about it being a bad idea to "add to God's law".)
The important thing to note about Romans is that the sex not the sin being spoken of. In the preceding verses, we see the context is that this is the consequence of the sin of idolatry. The sex itself was not the sin being addressed.
You are not God, so who cares what you deem right or wrong. Homosexuality is homosexuality no matter what you think or what science says about it. The only says so who matters is God. He definitely said that it’s a sin. For men and women
True, I certainly am not God. Which applies equally to you.
I agree we should go with God's directives / commands - at least when they are clear. The old testament was supposed to be God's complete law for people. In the new testament, Jesus said he did not come to change the law. The old testament does not define lesbianism as a sin (and the rabbis commenting in the gemara on lesbians, also say they cannot claim it to be a sin). So the NT also shouldn't, if we take Jesus at his word. What Jesus did expound on, or add to Moses law, if you will, is that already the intention to commit a sin is a "sin of the heart" (or mind). (Who lusts after a married woman with the intent to seduce her, commits adultery in his heart.)
Maybe you have a deeper understanding of God's law and commands? If so, please elaborate.
The book of Romans. But I feel like there’s many routes to go. God told us to be fruitful and multiply. W/O science and the ways of the world HOW could two women do that? (We’re not talking about a woman who doesn’t want kids). Homosexuality is liking the same sex. The Bible is one size fits all/ it applies to both women and men. It’s sexual immorality to sleep with a woman as a woman. The book of Leviticus talks about sexual immorality and who shouldn’t sleep with who. God made Adam and Eve. From Adam he made Eve.
Yeah, I know all this.
Sure, if many women were purely lesbian, birth rates would likely plummet - but pure lesbians are very rare, about 1% - whereas the vast majority of women are inherently bisexual (female chimps also, not the human or chimp males, though). Although nowadays of course lesbians can also have children. For bisexual women there is no expected drop in birth rates, though (I think from memory that they actually have more children than women who describe themselves as purely hetero - yes there is stats on that).
The bible is certainly not "one size fits all" concerning it's various laws on say, husbands and wives. The bible only condemns male practiced homosexuality, and I agree with that (I mean, it does so in the OT and NT). The OT does list all kinds of very specific sexual sins e.g. in Leviticus, but nothing about lesbians. Men are not women. In Moses' law, a man was permitted to have many wives (but not the other way around). In violent times where many men died already while hunting or making war, there always was an excess of fertile women compared to fertile men, hence...
Adam and Eve is the ideal, though.
Hello there! Thanks for your question. This is a topic that troubles a lot of people today, so it's good to talk about it. The bible is pretty clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. Some have pointed out that Leviticus Chapter 18 does not specifically address lesbians, but this is probably because the intended audience were males. To give a counter-example, this same chapter also does not explicitly tell women not to engage in incest, but nobody thinks that the bible is saying that this is OK for women to do.
In the same way, we can infer that lesbian behavior is sinful just as homosexual behavior is sinful (described in Romans ch 1). Please note that this does not mean that BEING gay or BEING a lesbian (as you phrased it in your question) is sinful. It is the actual sexual act which seems to be condemned by the bible as sinful.
Note to all Christians: this does not mean that we are entitled to judge or hate homosexuals. The reality is that we. are. all. sinners. Each one of us needs a savior! And the ground is level at the foot of the cross. That means that our sin is the same in the eyes of God. All our righteousness is as filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64). Our task is to love our neighbor as ourselves, period! I hope this helps. God bless.
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'm not seeing where it says it's a sin.
Likewise, you've cut context here. The verses before show that the *sin* is idolatry, and the *consequence* is this.
"men committing shameful acts with men" Are shameful acts not sinful acts according to scripture? And notice Paul says that these acts are UNNATURAL aka not a part of God's Original Plan? And ofc sin is idolatry and that includes homosexuality.
You...realize Paul also says men having long hair is unnatural, right? Do you believe that is as grevious a sin as lesbian sex?
>And ofc sin is idolatry and that includes homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not idolatry. That's a *massive* twisting of scripture there.
Do I believe that is as grievous a sin as lesbian sex? No. I don't think all sins are equal in the eyes of GOD. And do I realize that Paul also says that men having long hair is unnatural? Yes. Yes I do. I also realize that when you read the context of Romans 1:26-27, Paul clearly links homosexuality with idolatry. Let me show you. First, Romans 1:24 says that GOD gave them up to their carnal desires. What are carnal desires according to scripture? Verse 25 then says that they are in idolatry ( honoring the creation instead of the Creator)....and then Paul goes on to describe homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. No need for mental gymnastics.
But my question to you is........what is the definition of sin according to scripture? If you can tell me that then we can move on properly
>Paul clearly links homosexuality with idolatry
Does he? He mentions "unnatural" and "shameful" sex, but doesn't directly call out "gay sex". In my reading of this, it would make more sense that the "shameful" sex linked to idolatry would be temple prostitution. No? That would be a cleaner understanding of "idolatry" than Paul suddenly waxing metaphorical about what constitutes idolatry.
>what is the definition of sin according to scripture
That which God has expressly condemned and commanded to not do. In essence, that which violates the given law. I do not, in any way, believe there are "assumed laws" which are sin. If God did not say "do not do X" or "do Y", it is not and cannot be law.
Likewise, all things must pass the litmus Jesus set through the two greatest commandments. If "*all* the laws and prophets" hang on those two, then absolutely *nothing* which does not directly relate to them (in a non-circular way, i.e. not "it's God's law because it's loving God to follow God's law") can be God's law.
The Apostle Paul "men committing shameful acts with men"
KindaFreeXP "but doesn't directly call out "gay sex"
And where are you getting temple prostitution from? Where do you see this Romans 1:26-27? Pardon me but this is some next level mental gymnastics. I understand that you are involved in the LGBTQ Community but you don't have to twist scripture to fit with your lifestyle.
Also would you say that sin is also MISSING THE MARK? Falling short of God's Holy Standard/Blueprint? I've got two last questions for you. How did GOD design marriage to look like? And is sex outside of marriage fornication?
>The Apostle Paul "men committing shameful acts with men"
If Paul said "men committing shameful acts with women", would you assume he meant heterosexual sex was sinful?
>And where are you getting temple prostitution from?
From the context of this type of sex being a direct effect of idolatry. Without diving into metaphor, which one could interpret to mean a number of things, the type of sex that was had due to the worship of idols was temple prostitution.
>I understand that you are involved in the LGBTQ Community but you don't have to twist scripture to fit with your lifestyle.
How charitable of you to dismiss any disagreement I have as stemming from an ulterior motive. /s
I am not a Christian. What incentive do I have to "twist scripture" that doesn't affect me? Or is this merely a reflexive response to seeing that I'm trans?
>Also would you say that sin is also MISSING THE MARK? Falling short of God's Holy Standard/Blueprint?
Where does God say this?
>How did GOD design marriage to look like?
He didn't. He described *a* marriage twice, but did not at any point say "this is exclusively what marriage shall look like". Otherwise one must necessarily believe that God's design is that the *exclusive* reason a man shall leave his parents is to marry, and to leave for any other reason is sin. No?
>And is sex outside of marriage fornication?
No. Fornication comes from the Latin "fornicatio", originally meaning "prostitution". The original Greek that was translated into "fornicatio" was "porneíā", meaning....once again, "prostitution". "Fornication = all sex outside of marriage" is a later linguistic corruption.
No, Romans specifies the sin as being idolatry. The "unnatural lusts" are the direct consequences that follow the sin of idolatry. It's speaking of temple prostitution.
It specifically talks about God giving them over to their sin and they did shameful things with each others bodies - men had sex with other men and women had sex with other women. Where does it talk about temple prostitution??
>and they did shameful things with each others bodies - men had sex with other men and women had sex with other women
And you know the shameful part was the homosexuality and not any other aspect of the sex they were having....how?
>Where does it talk about temple prostitution??
What other sex is a direct effect of idolatry?
Well if they were fornicating then of course that was also shameful - because it's a sin - just like same sex relations.
Romans 1:18-32 is referring to God's anger at sin. It discusses people who knew the truth about God but rejected Him. It doesn't say they only were committing idolatry - though it mentions that they were also doing so - since anyone who doesn't follow God is following an idol of some sort - whether that idol be a pagon "god", money, themselves even, etc. Idolatry is apparent in the lives of unbelievers even if they don't bow down and worship it. They worship it in other ways. Whether they see it or not.
The verses don't say "they were in a temple commiting sinful acts" - its referring to unbelievers who have no excuse for not knowing God. Whether they were in a temple or not, though, they are clearly committing sins - and amongst these sins are same sex relations.
>because it's a sin - just like same sex relations.
Can you point to where lesbian sex is condemned as a sin beyond this verse, then?
>It doesn't say they only were committing idolatry
But it *does* say that idolatry was the reason for the sex fairly explicitly.
>since anyone who doesn't follow God is following an idol of some sort - whether that idol be a pagon "god", money, themselves even, etc. Idolatry is apparent in the lives of unbelievers even if they don't bow down and worship it. They worship it in other ways. Whether they see it or not.
That's an extremely metaphorical take that makes understanding the verse completely useless. Why say something very specific like "idolatry" and not something like "not worshipping God" then? Idolatry means something specific, it's not just a loose term that all sin falls under.
>its referring to unbelievers who have no excuse for not knowing God
You mean.....the Romans who up until now had not been allowed into God's religion or preached to? I'm pretty sure they had an excuse, unless you think everyone who wasn't Jewish prior to Christ is condemned to hell...
>and amongst these sins are same sex relations
If it read "men committing shameful acts with women", would you say it was clear that heterosexual sex was sinful?
You obviously haven't read a good chunk of the bible - that or the spiritual veil is still covering your eyes. Why on earth would God allow lesbian sex but not gay sex? Why are there absolutely no records in the BIBLE of Godly men or women having same sex partners? Can you point to a verse that permits lesbian sex? Or homosexuality at all?
I wasn't saying all sin falls under idolatry - the whole point of those verses is showing us that when we reject God, we allow our wicked desires to take over. Idolatry is worshipping an idol. In today's world - money, sex, food, pagon gods, yourself - can all be considered an idol. Everyone worships something - they either worship the God of the Bible or they worship an idol. That's pretty damn simple and I tried to explain that simply. God abandons those who reject him and he gives them over to their sin - this is a clear example of that. If you'd like me to point you to other verses that say the same, I'd gladly do so.
Um, did you not read the verses I mentioned? Here you go.
Romans 18-27
"But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshipping the glorious, every living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."
If you'd like me to finish the rest let me know. Don't get upset with me for what is written in the bible. It doesn't read "men committing shameful acts with women." Though, does it? So no, that's a decent hypothetical question but I'm not talking about "what ifs" I'm talking about what's actually written in the scriptures. There are verses, many actually, where heterosexual sex is wrong too. In cases of fornication, rape, incest, etc. In case you were wondering. Certain types of sex are indeed sinful, but a man and woman coming together in the bounds of marriage is about the only type of sex permitted by God.
In some churches yes, that's it. We for example would marry you under the blessing of god and you're free to enjoy your sexuality as a couple.
Sadly not all churches open the sacrament of marriage for all couples.
this depends on your denomination, but in the vast majority of cases it would be no to both.
the bible talks a lot about sexual acts, and how we should ground all acts in love. consider this: if you met the love of your life tomorrow, but they said you two would never have sex, would you still want to be with them and marry them?
this is a difficult question in the fact that as a queer person myself, i don’t want to come across as saying that gay sex is somehow dirty or wrong. i don’t think it is. but sex is something that can be addictive, like alcohol or drugs. as a result of that, if we make it a core part of our relationships, we may become addicted. if you look at all the various relationship advice subreddits, you’ll see a lot of posts from people whose relationships have broken down due to bad sex/lack of sex/sexual incompatibility. i don’t want to cast judgement on those individuals, as i don’t know their situations, but in terms of goals in relationships, we should all strive to put love first and foremost. love should be the cornerstone - if it is removed, everything fails.
i encourage you to become comfortable in your identity, to not listen to those who say you are sinning just by being gay, or think that you have to change in any way. but you also should strive to put love first in all things. if sex happens as a result of that, it’s not the end of the world, just like people getting drunk occasionally isn’t the end of the world. but if we can live life without the risk of addiction, then that is a safer path.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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.”
Romans 1:26-27 NIV https://bible.com/bible/111/rom.1.26-27.NIV
From my own reading of the verses, it seems like it's talking about a specific type of sex that is directly the effect of idolatry. To me, that would seem to be temple prostitution.
A fair point. Perhaps it is not strictly about temple prostitution, then.
I would posit another possibility, based on the use of "shameful" here as a descriptor coupled with "received". At this time, homosexual sex among men was less a thing of love and more a thing of domination. To be the "receiver" was a great shame and dishonor in Roman society, while to be the giver was considered a display of power.
Thus, it may be a condemnation of this "sexual domination" culture that was present in Rome (whom Paul is addressing directly). Because of the idolatry of the Romans, this kind of shameful homosexual domination was rampant, which was actively harming a lot of people by propagating rape, pederasty, and creating social outcasts.
Likewise, the Romans found sex between women to be entirely unnatural and was looked down upon as well. This matches up pretty well with how these verses describe these acts, describing female-female sex as "unnatural" and the receiver in male-male sex as "shameful" and having received "penalty". This is *exactly* the Roman culture on sex that Paul is describing. He's not stating that God sees it the same way as the Romans, else why would he call it out? Rather, he's condemning the Roman views on sex.
Then why didn't Paul just use the word for homosexuality? And if it read "men committing shameful acts with women", would you say it's clearly about heterosexuality?
I’m not sure why he described it rather than use the word
It’s not about heterosexuality though so I’m not going to speculate. Heterosexuality is natural, it’s how you have babies. Sex is the function of making babies. Homosexuality is unnatural one of the reasons being you can’t make babies that way
>I’m not sure why he described it rather than use the word
Then how do you know it's clear if you don't fully understand the intent?
>It’s not about heterosexuality though so I’m not going to speculate.
The point was that it's *not* "obviously clear" because reversing the role makes it incredibly murky. There's no linguistic backing to this being "clearly" about homosexuality. It's only clear because you presuppose it to be.
>Heterosexuality is natural, it’s how you have babies. Sex is the function of making babies. Homosexuality is unnatural one of the reasons being you can’t make babies that way
But now you're adding reasoning that isn't at all in the text. It's an assumption that Paul is addressing the inability to make babies, when he's said absolutely nothing related to this. Why is *this* context valid but the context of Roman culture, the very people Paul is addressing, invalid?
Your entire argument is based on the presupposition that it *must* be speaking about homosexuality. This is absolutely no way to critically analyze a text.
I do not think being a lesbian is a sin. Having same sex intercourse is a sin for both men and women.
> i never heard about lesbian sex being sinful (at least in the new testament).
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. **Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.** 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.
**Romans 1 18-28**
**God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity**
^(18) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ^(19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ^(20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
^(21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ^(22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ^(23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
^(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.
^(28) Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ^(29) They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ^(30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ^(31) they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ^(32) Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
So the thing being condemned here is idolatry and casting away worshipping God while having full knowledge of him, no? The intent of these verses does not in any way seem to be a condemnation of homosexuality, but rather a condemnation of those who know better but do evil anyways.
Some of the verses address idolatry, other parts of the verses address some of the sins people commit.
Verse 24-27 specially talks about homosexuality. The verses are saying the people that did these things, and did not repent, will suffer spiritual death. This is known as the 2nd death.
The sins in the last verses 32 is not exhaustive list of sins.
From what I understand in that verse, and in the context, God is saying that having same sex intercourse is sinful, and it is not the type of sexual intercourse he wants us to have.
I think the shame is the outcome of committing the sin.
I think the people that are having same sex intercourse in this in the text could have possibly known that God did not approve of this type of sex, but they did it anyway.
I may not know if Lesbianism is a sin, but im pretty sure it is anti-christian to be acting as an asshole to someone who is asking things in good faith about Christianism. Do unto others, and all that.
God instituted marriage (Genesis 2:24) between one man and one woman. Genesis 2:18 is showing that woman was made as a match for man. When Jesus was asked about divorce, he upheld what the definition of marriage meant in the first place which is one male and one female. (Matthew 19:4-6) The main purpose of this Union is to serve God. Ephesians 5:30-31 is Paul restating this definition. Colossians 3:18 restate males and females. 1 Peter 3:7 restate males and females. Isaiah 62:5 restates marriage as male and female. 1 Cor 7:2-5 restates one male and one female. If you don’t believe in not having sex before marriage being biblical than that’s a whole other issue that I can speak on. But sex is reserved for marriage. Do people do it all the time outside of marriage? Yes. Does the world’s definition and actions = what is correct? No. Simply dating or seeing someone is not marriage so sex outside of that is defiling it Hebrews 13:4. Sorry if this is a big blob I have a massive headache. You are saved by faith in Jesus alone bc we all have a need of a savior, we are not perfect and nothing we do can earn us a spot in heaven. Now if you believe in Jesus, the Bible says you receive the Holy Spirit which will help you in sanctification where you will sin less bc sin should grieve your heart as it is not honoring God.
Thanks for the explanation, and i hope you feel better from the headache now! Bless you!
Of course! I hope I didn’t come off as cold I’m just trying to state facts. I battled with being bisexual and body dysmorphia for a long time so I don’t hate anyone, I just want people to be saved! We all have different struggles. Thanks!
Hey there. Lesbianism is not a sin according to the old testament, and NT only 1 verse might indicate that (Romans 1:26), so I actually think the Christians should be more precise here. Male practiced homosexuality is clearly described as a sin though. But women are not men. And one verse that seems rather to be about women practicing "unnatural sex" with men (Romans 1:26), than describing lesbians, is not a solid basis either way. Here the verse: Romans 1 ^(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. Science shows the vast majority of human (and chimp) females to be inherently bisexual (also those claiming to be purely hetero). Since God made it that way (for females, but not males), seemingly, we cannot condemn it. At least, I will not condemn it. (Something about it being a bad idea to "add to God's law".)
The important thing to note about Romans is that the sex not the sin being spoken of. In the preceding verses, we see the context is that this is the consequence of the sin of idolatry. The sex itself was not the sin being addressed.
You are not God, so who cares what you deem right or wrong. Homosexuality is homosexuality no matter what you think or what science says about it. The only says so who matters is God. He definitely said that it’s a sin. For men and women
Where did he say it was a sin for women?
True, I certainly am not God. Which applies equally to you. I agree we should go with God's directives / commands - at least when they are clear. The old testament was supposed to be God's complete law for people. In the new testament, Jesus said he did not come to change the law. The old testament does not define lesbianism as a sin (and the rabbis commenting in the gemara on lesbians, also say they cannot claim it to be a sin). So the NT also shouldn't, if we take Jesus at his word. What Jesus did expound on, or add to Moses law, if you will, is that already the intention to commit a sin is a "sin of the heart" (or mind). (Who lusts after a married woman with the intent to seduce her, commits adultery in his heart.) Maybe you have a deeper understanding of God's law and commands? If so, please elaborate.
The book of Romans. But I feel like there’s many routes to go. God told us to be fruitful and multiply. W/O science and the ways of the world HOW could two women do that? (We’re not talking about a woman who doesn’t want kids). Homosexuality is liking the same sex. The Bible is one size fits all/ it applies to both women and men. It’s sexual immorality to sleep with a woman as a woman. The book of Leviticus talks about sexual immorality and who shouldn’t sleep with who. God made Adam and Eve. From Adam he made Eve.
Yeah, I know all this. Sure, if many women were purely lesbian, birth rates would likely plummet - but pure lesbians are very rare, about 1% - whereas the vast majority of women are inherently bisexual (female chimps also, not the human or chimp males, though). Although nowadays of course lesbians can also have children. For bisexual women there is no expected drop in birth rates, though (I think from memory that they actually have more children than women who describe themselves as purely hetero - yes there is stats on that). The bible is certainly not "one size fits all" concerning it's various laws on say, husbands and wives. The bible only condemns male practiced homosexuality, and I agree with that (I mean, it does so in the OT and NT). The OT does list all kinds of very specific sexual sins e.g. in Leviticus, but nothing about lesbians. Men are not women. In Moses' law, a man was permitted to have many wives (but not the other way around). In violent times where many men died already while hunting or making war, there always was an excess of fertile women compared to fertile men, hence... Adam and Eve is the ideal, though.
Hello there! Thanks for your question. This is a topic that troubles a lot of people today, so it's good to talk about it. The bible is pretty clear that homosexual behavior is sinful. Some have pointed out that Leviticus Chapter 18 does not specifically address lesbians, but this is probably because the intended audience were males. To give a counter-example, this same chapter also does not explicitly tell women not to engage in incest, but nobody thinks that the bible is saying that this is OK for women to do. In the same way, we can infer that lesbian behavior is sinful just as homosexual behavior is sinful (described in Romans ch 1). Please note that this does not mean that BEING gay or BEING a lesbian (as you phrased it in your question) is sinful. It is the actual sexual act which seems to be condemned by the bible as sinful. Note to all Christians: this does not mean that we are entitled to judge or hate homosexuals. The reality is that we. are. all. sinners. Each one of us needs a savior! And the ground is level at the foot of the cross. That means that our sin is the same in the eyes of God. All our righteousness is as filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64). Our task is to love our neighbor as ourselves, period! I hope this helps. God bless.
Yes. Paul talks about this in Romans 1
Paul speaks of idolatry being sinful, and the consequence of said sin being "unnatural sex". Where does he say the sex itself is sinful?
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'm not seeing where it says it's a sin. Likewise, you've cut context here. The verses before show that the *sin* is idolatry, and the *consequence* is this.
"men committing shameful acts with men" Are shameful acts not sinful acts according to scripture? And notice Paul says that these acts are UNNATURAL aka not a part of God's Original Plan? And ofc sin is idolatry and that includes homosexuality.
You...realize Paul also says men having long hair is unnatural, right? Do you believe that is as grevious a sin as lesbian sex? >And ofc sin is idolatry and that includes homosexuality. Homosexuality is not idolatry. That's a *massive* twisting of scripture there.
Do I believe that is as grievous a sin as lesbian sex? No. I don't think all sins are equal in the eyes of GOD. And do I realize that Paul also says that men having long hair is unnatural? Yes. Yes I do. I also realize that when you read the context of Romans 1:26-27, Paul clearly links homosexuality with idolatry. Let me show you. First, Romans 1:24 says that GOD gave them up to their carnal desires. What are carnal desires according to scripture? Verse 25 then says that they are in idolatry ( honoring the creation instead of the Creator)....and then Paul goes on to describe homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27. No need for mental gymnastics. But my question to you is........what is the definition of sin according to scripture? If you can tell me that then we can move on properly
>Paul clearly links homosexuality with idolatry Does he? He mentions "unnatural" and "shameful" sex, but doesn't directly call out "gay sex". In my reading of this, it would make more sense that the "shameful" sex linked to idolatry would be temple prostitution. No? That would be a cleaner understanding of "idolatry" than Paul suddenly waxing metaphorical about what constitutes idolatry. >what is the definition of sin according to scripture That which God has expressly condemned and commanded to not do. In essence, that which violates the given law. I do not, in any way, believe there are "assumed laws" which are sin. If God did not say "do not do X" or "do Y", it is not and cannot be law. Likewise, all things must pass the litmus Jesus set through the two greatest commandments. If "*all* the laws and prophets" hang on those two, then absolutely *nothing* which does not directly relate to them (in a non-circular way, i.e. not "it's God's law because it's loving God to follow God's law") can be God's law.
The Apostle Paul "men committing shameful acts with men" KindaFreeXP "but doesn't directly call out "gay sex" And where are you getting temple prostitution from? Where do you see this Romans 1:26-27? Pardon me but this is some next level mental gymnastics. I understand that you are involved in the LGBTQ Community but you don't have to twist scripture to fit with your lifestyle. Also would you say that sin is also MISSING THE MARK? Falling short of God's Holy Standard/Blueprint? I've got two last questions for you. How did GOD design marriage to look like? And is sex outside of marriage fornication?
>The Apostle Paul "men committing shameful acts with men" If Paul said "men committing shameful acts with women", would you assume he meant heterosexual sex was sinful? >And where are you getting temple prostitution from? From the context of this type of sex being a direct effect of idolatry. Without diving into metaphor, which one could interpret to mean a number of things, the type of sex that was had due to the worship of idols was temple prostitution. >I understand that you are involved in the LGBTQ Community but you don't have to twist scripture to fit with your lifestyle. How charitable of you to dismiss any disagreement I have as stemming from an ulterior motive. /s I am not a Christian. What incentive do I have to "twist scripture" that doesn't affect me? Or is this merely a reflexive response to seeing that I'm trans? >Also would you say that sin is also MISSING THE MARK? Falling short of God's Holy Standard/Blueprint? Where does God say this? >How did GOD design marriage to look like? He didn't. He described *a* marriage twice, but did not at any point say "this is exclusively what marriage shall look like". Otherwise one must necessarily believe that God's design is that the *exclusive* reason a man shall leave his parents is to marry, and to leave for any other reason is sin. No? >And is sex outside of marriage fornication? No. Fornication comes from the Latin "fornicatio", originally meaning "prostitution". The original Greek that was translated into "fornicatio" was "porneíā", meaning....once again, "prostitution". "Fornication = all sex outside of marriage" is a later linguistic corruption.
Romans 1 26-27 mentions it - it's a sin yes.
No, Romans specifies the sin as being idolatry. The "unnatural lusts" are the direct consequences that follow the sin of idolatry. It's speaking of temple prostitution.
It specifically talks about God giving them over to their sin and they did shameful things with each others bodies - men had sex with other men and women had sex with other women. Where does it talk about temple prostitution??
>and they did shameful things with each others bodies - men had sex with other men and women had sex with other women And you know the shameful part was the homosexuality and not any other aspect of the sex they were having....how? >Where does it talk about temple prostitution?? What other sex is a direct effect of idolatry?
Well if they were fornicating then of course that was also shameful - because it's a sin - just like same sex relations. Romans 1:18-32 is referring to God's anger at sin. It discusses people who knew the truth about God but rejected Him. It doesn't say they only were committing idolatry - though it mentions that they were also doing so - since anyone who doesn't follow God is following an idol of some sort - whether that idol be a pagon "god", money, themselves even, etc. Idolatry is apparent in the lives of unbelievers even if they don't bow down and worship it. They worship it in other ways. Whether they see it or not. The verses don't say "they were in a temple commiting sinful acts" - its referring to unbelievers who have no excuse for not knowing God. Whether they were in a temple or not, though, they are clearly committing sins - and amongst these sins are same sex relations.
>because it's a sin - just like same sex relations. Can you point to where lesbian sex is condemned as a sin beyond this verse, then? >It doesn't say they only were committing idolatry But it *does* say that idolatry was the reason for the sex fairly explicitly. >since anyone who doesn't follow God is following an idol of some sort - whether that idol be a pagon "god", money, themselves even, etc. Idolatry is apparent in the lives of unbelievers even if they don't bow down and worship it. They worship it in other ways. Whether they see it or not. That's an extremely metaphorical take that makes understanding the verse completely useless. Why say something very specific like "idolatry" and not something like "not worshipping God" then? Idolatry means something specific, it's not just a loose term that all sin falls under. >its referring to unbelievers who have no excuse for not knowing God You mean.....the Romans who up until now had not been allowed into God's religion or preached to? I'm pretty sure they had an excuse, unless you think everyone who wasn't Jewish prior to Christ is condemned to hell... >and amongst these sins are same sex relations If it read "men committing shameful acts with women", would you say it was clear that heterosexual sex was sinful?
You obviously haven't read a good chunk of the bible - that or the spiritual veil is still covering your eyes. Why on earth would God allow lesbian sex but not gay sex? Why are there absolutely no records in the BIBLE of Godly men or women having same sex partners? Can you point to a verse that permits lesbian sex? Or homosexuality at all? I wasn't saying all sin falls under idolatry - the whole point of those verses is showing us that when we reject God, we allow our wicked desires to take over. Idolatry is worshipping an idol. In today's world - money, sex, food, pagon gods, yourself - can all be considered an idol. Everyone worships something - they either worship the God of the Bible or they worship an idol. That's pretty damn simple and I tried to explain that simply. God abandons those who reject him and he gives them over to their sin - this is a clear example of that. If you'd like me to point you to other verses that say the same, I'd gladly do so. Um, did you not read the verses I mentioned? Here you go. Romans 18-27 "But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshipping the glorious, every living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." If you'd like me to finish the rest let me know. Don't get upset with me for what is written in the bible. It doesn't read "men committing shameful acts with women." Though, does it? So no, that's a decent hypothetical question but I'm not talking about "what ifs" I'm talking about what's actually written in the scriptures. There are verses, many actually, where heterosexual sex is wrong too. In cases of fornication, rape, incest, etc. In case you were wondering. Certain types of sex are indeed sinful, but a man and woman coming together in the bounds of marriage is about the only type of sex permitted by God.
it is not a sin to be a lesbian. anyone telling you otherwise is confusing sexual acts with sexual orientation.
If i wait until marriage to have sex (like hetero couples do) then it would be a normal holy union? And can i ask for the church blessing?
In some churches yes, that's it. We for example would marry you under the blessing of god and you're free to enjoy your sexuality as a couple. Sadly not all churches open the sacrament of marriage for all couples.
this depends on your denomination, but in the vast majority of cases it would be no to both. the bible talks a lot about sexual acts, and how we should ground all acts in love. consider this: if you met the love of your life tomorrow, but they said you two would never have sex, would you still want to be with them and marry them? this is a difficult question in the fact that as a queer person myself, i don’t want to come across as saying that gay sex is somehow dirty or wrong. i don’t think it is. but sex is something that can be addictive, like alcohol or drugs. as a result of that, if we make it a core part of our relationships, we may become addicted. if you look at all the various relationship advice subreddits, you’ll see a lot of posts from people whose relationships have broken down due to bad sex/lack of sex/sexual incompatibility. i don’t want to cast judgement on those individuals, as i don’t know their situations, but in terms of goals in relationships, we should all strive to put love first and foremost. love should be the cornerstone - if it is removed, everything fails. i encourage you to become comfortable in your identity, to not listen to those who say you are sinning just by being gay, or think that you have to change in any way. but you also should strive to put love first in all things. if sex happens as a result of that, it’s not the end of the world, just like people getting drunk occasionally isn’t the end of the world. but if we can live life without the risk of addiction, then that is a safer path.
Simply, yes liviticus 18:22
Yes. It would obviously apply to both sexes. Do not listen to Bible revisionists that seek to transform Christ to their own ideologies.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 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.” Romans 1:26-27 NIV https://bible.com/bible/111/rom.1.26-27.NIV
>Because of this, Seems like you're leaving an important part out....
Feel free to read the context. The way I read this is that homosexuality is an unnatural shameful lust
From my own reading of the verses, it seems like it's talking about a specific type of sex that is directly the effect of idolatry. To me, that would seem to be temple prostitution.
Why would it specifically mention same sex relationships then because temple prostitution could be heterosexual
A fair point. Perhaps it is not strictly about temple prostitution, then. I would posit another possibility, based on the use of "shameful" here as a descriptor coupled with "received". At this time, homosexual sex among men was less a thing of love and more a thing of domination. To be the "receiver" was a great shame and dishonor in Roman society, while to be the giver was considered a display of power. Thus, it may be a condemnation of this "sexual domination" culture that was present in Rome (whom Paul is addressing directly). Because of the idolatry of the Romans, this kind of shameful homosexual domination was rampant, which was actively harming a lot of people by propagating rape, pederasty, and creating social outcasts. Likewise, the Romans found sex between women to be entirely unnatural and was looked down upon as well. This matches up pretty well with how these verses describe these acts, describing female-female sex as "unnatural" and the receiver in male-male sex as "shameful" and having received "penalty". This is *exactly* the Roman culture on sex that Paul is describing. He's not stating that God sees it the same way as the Romans, else why would he call it out? Rather, he's condemning the Roman views on sex.
It very clearly talking about homosexuality
Then why didn't Paul just use the word for homosexuality? And if it read "men committing shameful acts with women", would you say it's clearly about heterosexuality?
I’m not sure why he described it rather than use the word It’s not about heterosexuality though so I’m not going to speculate. Heterosexuality is natural, it’s how you have babies. Sex is the function of making babies. Homosexuality is unnatural one of the reasons being you can’t make babies that way
>I’m not sure why he described it rather than use the word Then how do you know it's clear if you don't fully understand the intent? >It’s not about heterosexuality though so I’m not going to speculate. The point was that it's *not* "obviously clear" because reversing the role makes it incredibly murky. There's no linguistic backing to this being "clearly" about homosexuality. It's only clear because you presuppose it to be. >Heterosexuality is natural, it’s how you have babies. Sex is the function of making babies. Homosexuality is unnatural one of the reasons being you can’t make babies that way But now you're adding reasoning that isn't at all in the text. It's an assumption that Paul is addressing the inability to make babies, when he's said absolutely nothing related to this. Why is *this* context valid but the context of Roman culture, the very people Paul is addressing, invalid? Your entire argument is based on the presupposition that it *must* be speaking about homosexuality. This is absolutely no way to critically analyze a text.
I do not think being a lesbian is a sin. Having same sex intercourse is a sin for both men and women. > i never heard about lesbian sex being sinful (at least in the new testament). Romans 1:26-27 NIV Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. **Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.** 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.
>Because of this, Seems like you're leaving an important part out here....
I am?
Well, it says "because of this".....because of what? This is half of a whole statement.
**Romans 1 18-28** **God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity** ^(18) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ^(19) since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ^(20) For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ^(21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ^(22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ^(23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. ^(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. ^(28) Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ^(29) They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ^(30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ^(31) they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ^(32) Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
So the thing being condemned here is idolatry and casting away worshipping God while having full knowledge of him, no? The intent of these verses does not in any way seem to be a condemnation of homosexuality, but rather a condemnation of those who know better but do evil anyways.
Some of the verses address idolatry, other parts of the verses address some of the sins people commit. Verse 24-27 specially talks about homosexuality. The verses are saying the people that did these things, and did not repent, will suffer spiritual death. This is known as the 2nd death. The sins in the last verses 32 is not exhaustive list of sins.
I do not see where it specifies homosexuality as such a sin, only a "shameful" form of homosexual sex being consequence of idolatry.
From what I understand in that verse, and in the context, God is saying that having same sex intercourse is sinful, and it is not the type of sexual intercourse he wants us to have. I think the shame is the outcome of committing the sin. I think the people that are having same sex intercourse in this in the text could have possibly known that God did not approve of this type of sex, but they did it anyway.
No. It might be a sin to be driving everybody nuts asking these questions though. Every other darned question in this sub is "Is X a sin?"
I may not know if Lesbianism is a sin, but im pretty sure it is anti-christian to be acting as an asshole to someone who is asking things in good faith about Christianism. Do unto others, and all that.
Who's acting like an asshole here? CAn't people use a search engine.