YES
Despite confusion as to what the Bible says about homosexuality, it is clearly addressed in the Bible and is indeed a sin.
Homosexuality is addressed in both the Old and New Testaments, through verses about ceremonial laws and through verses about moral laws. In the Old Testament, it is addressed through ceremonial law — the ancient law of the Hebrews concerning notions such as cleanliness and what to eat.
Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is abomination.” A few chapters later, Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
The verses in Leviticus condemn homosexuality, calling it an abomination. Those who practice it, according to the verses, commit a capital offense and are condemned to death. Because these verses exist among verses that also condemn eating seafood, there is a question of whether such a strict moral code can be taken seriously. There is also question of whether a law that requires the stoning of homosexuals can be a perfect moral law.
An understanding of the whole Bible provides a solution to these problems.
Concerning issues of strict ceremonial laws, the New Testament reveals that the solution is Jesus Christ. Through his life, death and resurrection, Christ fulfilled Mosaic ceremonial laws according to Matthew 5:17. Christ’s fulfillment rendered these laws obsolete.
However, it is incorrect to discredit what the Bible says about homosexuality because of the passing of Mosaic law. Homosexuality falls under a different category than mere ceremonial law. It was addressed through moral laws also. These laws are the ones that say we shouldn’t lie, steal or cheat.
As for the capital punishment of homosexuals, Jesus took that punishment himself on the cross, satisfying God’s judgment of sin and homosexuality.
Some argue that people are born homosexual, making it wrong to condemn people for what they cannot control. When God created men and women, he sanctioned them to have relationships and sexual relations with each other. It would not make sense for God to create people who would do something contrary to his original design.
The New Testament makes a good case for the origin of homosexuality and therefore justifies the text’s condemning of it. Romans 1:21-24 states that homosexuality is not a result of genetics or birth, but of rebelliousness against God and refusal to acknowledge him. This leads to misconceptions and lies about God, which manifest themselves through various lusts and sins, including homosexuality.
A person is not born homosexual. However, all people are born in sin and with the desire to rebel against God, thus giving them the capacity to commit homosexual acts.
But, regardless of where homosexuality truly stems from, the question still remains of why it is a sin. 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 tells people to “Flee from sexual immorality.
“Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his or her own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
This verse explains why homosexuality, as a form of sexual immorality, is an abomination and why it is worse than other sins. It is wrong to commit sins against our body because we are temples of God’s spirit and were made to glorify Him. We cannot fulfill this purpose if we commit sexual sins.
In his letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul says all members of the church were all once sinners, but they were washed of their sins, including homosexuality, through Christ’s self sacrifice. Therefore, people are responsible for their sins if they do not accept salvation through Christ.
As sexual beings, we can glorify God through proper sexual relations within marriage between a man and a woman, as outlined in the second chapter of Genesis. Homosexuality is a grave sin that prevents people from fully glorifying God and reflecting his image. It also defiles their bodies.
An understanding of what the Bible says about homosexuality makes it clear that its claims are morally justifiable. There are sanctions against it so people can fulfill the purpose for which we were created: glorifying God.
Jelani Sims is a professional writing sophomore. His column usually appears every other Friday.
NO
I agree with the majority of conservative Christians that the Bible speaks clearly on the supposed depravity of homosexuality.
I agree as well that attempts by liberal Christians to “reinterpret” or otherwise marginalize these verses are nothing but muddling of the information clearly stated in the Bible.
However, having a Biblical justification behind your opposition to homosexuality — or behind any other attitude, for that matter — is pretty much worthless.
Furthermore, the Bible instructs its readers to kill homosexuals, not just snip away at their rights, something that few Christians are willing to do any longer.
Throughout history, the Bible’s incoherent moral decrees have lent justification to actions from the admirable to the abominable.
That homophobes can point to the Bible now and claim justification for their attitudes means nothing more than it did when southern Baptist slaveholders of the 1830s could point to the Bible and claim the same thing.
Historically, ideologues from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Adolf Hitler have declared that the Bible supported their actions, and have been able to do so with credibility.
This is due to the variation of the Bible’s information.
To illustrate, the Bible tells readers to value criticism over flattery (Ecclesiastes 7:5), to speak out on behalf of the downtrodden (Proverbs 31:9), and to be nice to strangers (Exodus 22:21).
This is good information.
However, the Bible also says new brides who can’t prove their virginity can be bludgeoned to death (Deuteronomy. 22:13-21) and that it’s OK to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them (Exodus 21:20-21).
That one can point to the source of these statements and find things that confirm one’s views is, to put it delicately, less than impressive.
I’d argue that, if the fact that your perspective is biblically justified is the strongest point in its favor, you’re probably wrong.
Even Christians who think the scriptural word is good enough reason to oppose gay marriage fail to follow the Bible’s actual directions.
The Levitical injunction against homosexuality (Leviticus. 18:22, 20:13), which memorably declares it an “abomination,” also says homosexuals (or non-celibate male homosexuals, anyway) “shall surely be put to death.”
Responses to this passage usually run along the lines of, “But that was the Old Testament,” or, “But Levitical laws were only meant to apply to the ancient Jews, and their culture was so different,” as if it were any more or less moral to execute capital punishment upon homosexuals in a different culture 2,500 years ago than it is here and now.
Some theologians also have tried to classify Leviticus’s decree of death for homosexuals as part of a set of ceremonial religious laws.
According to this interpretation, Leviticus speaks of gay sex as a type of idolatry, and does not in any sense class it as a sexual crime.
This is, however, pretty obviously contradicted by the verse’s placement — right between the prohibition against sleeping with one’s daughter-in-law and the prohibition against sleeping with one’s mother-in-law, neither of which anyone argues would be anything other than sexual
crimes.
I’m certainly happy Christians would rather try to rationalize Leviticus’s death sentence than enforce it.
But the truth is, the Bible does unambiguously condemn gays to be executed, and conservative Christians who attempt to brush Leviticus 20:13 aside are engaging in exactly the same sort of excuse-making that allows liberal Christians to discard the Bible’s statements on homosexuality entirely.
I don’t hold the Bible as the definitive moral authority on homosexuality and, unless you’re a Westboro Baptist Church type, most Christians and non-Christians don’t either.
If you need a credible justification for your homophobia, the Bible will be next to worthless except for posturing among other conservative Christians.
I’d suggest manipulating STD statistics instead.
Zac Smith is a University College sophomore. His column appears every other Monday.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Rhology 3 years, 6 months ago
-the Bible’s incoherent moral decrees have lent justification
Smith shows no familiarity with the standard rebuttal question - is it the text's fault or the readers' fault that they draw the wrong conclusion? If I get an F on my history exam, will the prof listen when I appeal to how sucky the textbook was? Not likely.
-This is good information.
I sure do appreciate Pope Zac declaring such a moral value judgment from On High. Perhaps he could write a column next week informing us whence he got this authority to tell anyone else what is good and bad moral judgments. I thought that was God's job.
-new brides who can’t prove their virginity can be bludgeoned to death (Deuteronomy. 22:13-21)
OT Israelite civil law. Try again.
-it’s OK to beat your slaves as long as you don’t kill them (Exodus 21:20-21)
Look it up. Where does the text say "It is OK to beat your slaves"?
It prescribes a PENALTY for beating the slave. Did Smith sleep thru all his Reading Comprehension Gateway classes, or did he just smash and grab some stuff from the laughable Skeptics' Annotated Bible?
-Some theologians also have tried to classify Leviticus’s decree of death for homosexuals as part of a set of ceremonial religious laws.
Yes, and others have tried to make the Bible say that Christ didn't even die on the cross. People say all kinds of stupid things. Smith doesn't even attempt to justify his statement, he just throws it out there.
All in all, a poor performance from Smith, but poor performances are his M.O.
BrianCBiggs 3 years, 6 months ago
Zac Smith ultimately sets up the false dichotomy of either being a 'Westboro Baptist Church type' or not holding the Bible as a moral authority. I recognize that many do not, but those who don the name Christian OUGHT to hold to Sola Scriptura; that is, that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. Now, I maintain that Sola Scriptura is what Christians OUGHT to hold to, but before any Catholics (such as Chestertonian) jump in, I will concede that for the sake of this argument that Catholics and I can at least agree that the Bible is A regula fide and it is binding on the Christian conscience. How can one claim to follow Christ, yet ignore or dismiss His Word?
Mr. Smith rightly points out that theological liberals dismiss sections of the Bible that discuss this entirely. But he wrongly asserts that conservatives 'brush' Leviticus aside. Yes, conservatives assert that we are under a new covenant, but that is not the equivalent of saying that Leviticus was wrong or immoral; before God we all deserve death and Hell. Mr. Smith's assertions demonstrate a lack of understanding concerning the distinction between covenants and the nature of Levitical Law.
Concerning non-Christians: I don't expect them to naturally look to the Bible as any sort of authority. However, if the Christian is to abandon the Bible entirely and try to reason with no submission to Scripture, they undercut their own position. I would like to hear what Mr. Smith WOULD consider a moral authority, or source of morality.
Mr. Smith, rather than arguing false dichotomies, I'd suggest you stick with using a pejorative such as 'homophobic' instead.
Rhology 3 years, 6 months ago
Smith gets it wrong again. Part of it is not his fault, though. The topic is "Can the Bible justify opposition to homosexuality?"
He complains: -the Bible instructs its readers to kill homosexuals, not just snip away at their rights
Wouldn't that be "opposition"? It's as if Smith briefly forgot the topic at hand. Not that he's correct about that - "the Bible" is not one book, but a compendium, an anthology of 66 books. Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts, yes, but those were civil penalties for the Old Testament Israelite nation.
Christians are commanded to obey the laws of the land insofar as they don't conflict with God's law. Homosexuality remains a sin, but the penalty is SPIRITUAL death at God's hands (and civil penalties, IF the government of the time enforces those penalties). Smith should know better than to prognosticate based on ignorance. Later in his column, Smith tries to kick dirt on this very idea, but simply expressing disbelief or astonishment at someone's argument is not an argument. It is a worthless argument ad incredulum. Me, I can't believe Smith's views in some cases are as dumb as they are, but the difference between us is substantive argumentation. But maybe Smith just wants to preen before and look good for the clueless hoi polloi.
He says: -having a Biblical justification behind your opposition to homosexuality — or behind any other attitude, for that matter — is pretty much worthless.
Therefore, having having a Biblical justification behind your opposition to ANYTHING is pretty much worthless in Smith's view. I'm just pointing that out.
free4all 3 years, 6 months ago
"This verse explains why homosexuality, as a form of sexual immorality, is an abomination and why it is worse than other sins."
If homosexuality is worse than other sins that do not include the body, is it equal to the other sexual sins that do include the body? So any person that masturbates or fornicates is just as morally bad as a homosexual?
I think the most important thing to keep in mind is we are all sinners by nature, and to judge someone based on their sins is 1. a sin and 2. wrong. How about we just love and accept everyone like we were commanded to do:
Rhology 3 years, 6 months ago
I can relate to T_Money. I was born with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and bestiality. Can't explain it, but I just really dig sex with donkeys with no fewer than 5 shots of Grey Goose in me and 7 shots in the donkey. It's weird for a lot of people, but so what? Who are you to judge me?
Moreover, I demand that the US Gov't recognise my marriage to said donkey (I call him Jimmy Boy).
Fight on, brother flyingdutchman. You and I are shoulder-to-shoulder, fighting for the same rights!
BrianCBiggs 3 years, 6 months ago
Free4all,
You are misusing John 13:34-35. This passage occurs during the last supper and Jesus is speaking to his disciples (with the exception of Judas Iscariot, who had already left). Jesus is telling the disciples to love each other, not everyone. Now, we are commanded to love our neighbor and we are commanded to love our enemies, but this is not one of those commandments.
You also seem to think that Jelani is judging "someone based on their sins." It seems to me that he is writing about homosexuality rather than a person. Perhaps you could say that he ought not write about homosexuals being sinful, but I fail to see how that is would be different that a column advocating that murderers are sinful and ought not murder or that liars are sinful and ought not lie. His column is calling sin a sin and I fail to see how this is sinful, wrong, or unloving.
You say that we are commanded to "just love and accept everyone." Find a verse for that! The Bible tells us to love others, yes. But accept everyone? If you mean that we ought never to tell someone that they are sinful (even going into detail about what that means) and never call anyone to repentance then what you are suggesting is vehemently contrary to Scripture.
One more thing, if you meant to argue that calling one sin worse than another is wrong, then I suggest you haven't succeeded. I can think of nowhere in Scripture where it indicates that all sin is equally evil; all sin is condemning, but it doesn't follow that all sin is equally heinous.
We ought to love others, but it isn't loving to never point sin out for what it is.
flyingdutchman 3 years, 6 months ago
I usually just read the Opinion articles in passing and don't consider them past the first glance. The first stance of this debate captured my attention enough to finally create an account on here and address the writing.
As a gay guy, I wish that sooner or later those like Mr. Sims will realize that just because the Bible condemns homosexuality does not mean that it can or ever will go away. I did not choose to be a homosexual - it just happened.
I just have a few questions:
Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that puts you in the face of adversity until the day you die?
Why would a person choose to live a life that is punishable by death in many countries around the world?
Why would someone choose a lifestyle that, according to the Bible, could earn them a one-way ticket to eternal damnation?
The only answer to these questions is that nobody would consciously make this choice.
What I would most like for people to understand is the unique qualities instilled in individuals that are gay. I am proud to be the way I am and who I am. Because I am gay, I have a heightened appreciation for human spirit and life itself and consider individual beliefs and values something that energizes and empowers the world around us.
T_Money 3 years, 6 months ago
In response to the flyingdutchmen:
I just so happen to have condition similar to yours that I did not choose. I am an anti-social sociopath. I do not care about others and I am totally selfish. I wouldn't bat an eye if I killed somebody. So, Why would a person choose to live a life that is punishable by death in many countries around the world?
I am proud to be the way I am and who I am. I clearly didn't choose my sociopathic lifelstyle. Society should adjust to me and my murdering ways and anti-social ways.
This is the thrust of your argument; it can be used to defend any supposed genetic or unconscious choice we make (good or bad). It is a poor argument and needs to be revised to have any merit.
Then, the discussion goes back to the merits of homosexual behavior not on whether it is a choice or not. "Choice" or "born that way" is irrelevant to the morality of a homosexual action.
Chestertonian 3 years, 6 months ago
I'm flattered that you thought of me, Brian. And yes, regula fide, not sola scriptura.
I must say I sympathize with T_Money's argument, but not the flippant tone with which it is delivered. And I think Rology's addition was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. It is designed more to tick people off than present an actual argument. The proper response to homosexuality is empathy or nothing. Anything else only serves to alienate those who we should be admonishing.
And free4all, I think we can all agree that no one loves more than Jesus. Consider that Jesus often rebuked those who were doing wrong. Sincere criticism is a result of love, not a contradiction to it.