I have heard the claim above as a way to condone the sinful behavior. How do I prove it is sinful?
Ron 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error.
There was no such thing as “homosexuality” before the 19th century. It was invented by psychology to describe the propensity of certain people for certain acts. Prior to the invention of this term, you had people who committed various types of sodomy and people who didn’t, and nobody thought to classify them into different boxes.
The word sex (as an activity) doesn’t appear either. These words are modern inventions.
Maybe I am just dense, but that seems pretty clear to me. Not sure why there has to be a “word” in the Bible for the matter - The Church seems to have had about 2,000 years of understanding that the above passage describes serious sin, without having the need for a “word”. Or for that matter, “words” to describe the various permutations of sexual sins.
But the concept of sex was roughly the same as it now, and they had words for that, but Sacred Scripture is known for using euphemisms for unprintable conduct or events. Therefore the Bible describes a homosexual act of sodomy thus.
The English language did not exist for about the first half of Christianity’s history (call it the year 1,000 AD or thereabouts).
So the English words ‘ship’ and ‘horse’ and ‘sword’ did not yet exist.
Does that mean actual ships, horses and swords did not exist until the English language appeared?
Homosexual activity was known to exist well before the time of Christ. It was mentioned–and condemned–in Scripture. The fact that it was described in Hebrew, or Latin or Greek, is beside the point.
But the concept of homosexual orientation was foreign to everyone until the 19th century. They simply didn’t think along these lines of classification.
Ships, horses, and swords existed, but firearms and cannons and lasers did not exist. They might have seen these and called them “weapon” but the idea of energy weapons was unknown to the ancients.
Homosexual orientation = same sex attraction, yes?
But Scripture does not condemn emotions. Only decisions and choies can be sinful.
Roman 1: 26-27 does not condemn people for feeling same sex attraction. It condemns them for commiting sodomy.
Just as Scripture does not condemn a man or a woman for feeling desire for each other but does condemn them if they fornicate or commit adultery.
So these days we recognize it is possible for somebody to be afflicted with Same Sex Attraction. Such a person is not therefore commting sin.
But they must not act on that attraction. They must remain chaste or be guilty of sin.
And Anesti, you’re right. My analogy was flawed.
One of the more common words used in the Bible for all immoral sexual relations, that is not between a husband and wife, in the Greek language is πορνεία porneia.
There are always difficulties translating from one language to another and everyone who speaks more than one language very well knows that. There is also a problem with translating when words change meaning over time like the word temptation in my language is more used in the following context today: “May I tempt you with another cookie?” than serious sins.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.