Is It A Sin To Be Gay?

Is It A Sin To Be Gay? January 6, 2018

“So, is it ok to be gay and Christian?”

I think that’s a very good question. I will do my best to provide an answer.

Image: Pixabay
Image: Pixabay

First of all, I’ve been studying this topic for over a year now. It’s something I’ve held off writing about until I was quite certain I could speak about it with integrity.

If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time you already know that I’m no stranger to controversy. But this topic, unlike any other, is more volatile than anything I’ve ever written about before.

I’ve lost friends and relationships with other Christians over issues like hierarchy in the Church, the Priesthood of All Believers, Christian Non-Violence and the different views of Hell, to name a few.

But taking a position on the issue of Homosexuality has the potential to damage many relationships that I hold most dear, including members of our family.

At one point I nearly backed off completely. But then I felt I heard the Holy Spirit remind me that my calling is not to minimize my own suffering but to help alleviate the suffering of others.

So, here we go.

At one time I took the words of Paul at face value, especially when it came to verses where he forbids a woman to teach, or when he condemns homosexual activity.

But then something happened. First, my friend Jon Zens wrote a book called “What’s With Paul and Women?” which went directly to those passages where it appeared that Paul was clearly against women teaching men, or even speaking out loud in the assembly, and exposed our bad English translations, our lack of understanding the culture of that day, and years of bias against the subject matter.

What emerged was a better understanding of what Paul was actually saying, and better yet, WHY he was saying it.

For me, the topic of homosexuality has taken a similar path. As I’ve gone back to re-examine those passages where Paul certainly appears to condemn homosexuality I’ve begun to notice almost exactly the same pattern as what emerged in the issue of women in church leadership: The Greek words usually translated by our modern Bibles as “Homosexuals” don’t actually correlate to what we would call homosexuality today; There is a cultural phenomenon at work that most never incorporate; and there is a bias against homosexuality that is quite apparent once you consider all the perspectives that have been intentionally silenced over the years.

I’ll do my best to unpack all of that for you here.

For the record: I am not gay. No one in my immediate family is gay. I am not taking a stand against the traditional view of homosexuality based on any emotional imperative or personal agenda.

On the contrary, I am laying my head on this chopping block because I believe that the Christian church has used these few verses as a weapon to marginalize and condemn an entire group of people who should be welcomed into the Body of Christ as brothers and sisters.

I know I will take the hit for saying this. I’m saying it anyway. And I hope to back it up with some very solid Biblical exegesis and relevant insight.

Back to our friend’s question: “So, is it ok to be gay and Christian?”

I would say that, if you define being “gay” as having a same-sex attraction [and only an attraction, not moving further into lust or fornication], then yes, it is ok to be a Christian who is attracted to someone of the same sex.

How can I say this?

Because being attracted to someone, in itself, isn’t a sin. The Bible never suggests anything otherwise.

I know that some take the words of Jesus about “looking at a woman to lust after her” as being equal to adultery, but what Jesus was referring to was exactly what he said: lustful thoughts, not default attractions, are equal to adultery.

In other words: We’ve not committed the sin when we simply experience an attraction to another person. We sin when we allow our lusts to take over and our thoughts become carnal and/or we act on those lustful desires and physically engage in fornication.

But what about those verses you mentioned where Paul seems to very clearly condemn homosexuals?

Let’s take a look at those now.

Starting with Roman chapter 1, let’s look at what Paul has to say:

 “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper…” [Romans 1:24-28]

Honestly, I don’t believe there is any reason to believe that what Paul is describing here is analogous to what we would refer to as homosexuality today.

There are plenty of others who agree with me on this. For example, first century Christian,  Aristides and second century Christian apologist, Justin Martyr.

Aristides, who lived just 70 years after the Apostle Paul, taught that the issue Paul was addressing in Romans 1 was idolatry and sexual worship of false gods. In the second century, Justin Martyr also affirmed this interpretation of the passage.

Those aren’t exactly “liberal” Christian sources. These brothers aren’t alone, either. People like Bible Commentary expert Matthew Henry, Scottish evangelist Robert Haldane, and orthodox Calvinist, Charles Hodge also agree that what Paul is referring to in Romans 1 is a condemnation of pagan sexual temple practices of prostitution.

See for yourself:

“In Isaiah’s time it (idolatry) abounded, witness the abominable idolatries of Ahaz (which some think are particularly referred to here – Isaiah 57) and of Manasseh. They were dotingly fond of their idols, were inflamed with them, as those that burn in unlawful unnatural lusts [Romans 1:27]. They were mad upon their idols [Jeremiah 50:38]. They inflamed themselves with them by their violent passions in the worship of them, as those of Baal’s prophets that leaped upon the altar, and cut themselves [1 Kings 18:26,28]. Justly therefore were they given up to their own hearts’ lusts.” – Matthew Henry [From Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, Isaiah 57]

“The reasons why Paul refers in the first instance to the sins of uncleanness, in illustration and proof of the degradation of the heathen, probably were, that those sins are always intimately connected with idolatry, forming at times even a part of the service rendered to the false gods.” – Charles Hodge [From “A Commentary on Romans”, by Charles Hodge, 1983 reprint (first published in 1835), Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, PA, p. 41.]

“The Apostle having awfully depicted the magnitude of Pagan wickedness, and having shown that their ungodliness in abandoning the worship of the true God was the reason why they had been abandoned to their lusts, here descends into particulars, for the purpose of showing to what horrible excesses God had permitted them to proceed.

“This was necessary, to prove how odious in the sight of God is the crime of idolatry. Its recompense was this fearful abandonment. It was also necessary, in order to give a just idea of human corruption, as evinced in its monstrous enormities when allowed to take its course, and also in order to exhibit to believers a living proof of the depth of the evil from which God had delivered them; and, finally, to prove the falsity of the Pagan religion since, so far from preventing such excesses, it even incited and conducted men to their commission.” – Robert Haldane [From “Commentary on Romans” by Robert Haldane, 1835.]

If you doubt this assessment, I invite you to go back and to re-read Romans chapter one, from the beginning. What you’ll observe is a progression in Paul’s argument that begins with a condemnation of pagan idol worship and ends with a description of what that worship involves and how God punishes those who engage in the practice.

So, as I began to look at this passage again, I started to wonder if what Paul was focused on here was anything at all like what we would refer to as homosexuality today.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6. This is where things get a lot more interesting.

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.”  [1 Cor. 6:9, ESV]

This seems pretty much a slam-dunk, doesn’t it? How can we argue with this? Well, once you start to examine the Greek you’ll begin to see a few problems.

First, the word translated here as “homosexuals” is from the Greek word “arseno-koitai”. This is a word that most NT scholars would say Paul invented. In other words, we don’t exactly know what it means because it’s a compound word made out of two different Greek words which are forced together. Paul never explains or defines this word for us. It literally means “Man” and “To Bed” which our  modern English NT translators have wrongly rendered as “homosexuals”.

That term first appeared in our modern English translations in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible back in 1946.

Bibles translated earlier than 1946 render the verse like this:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (arsenokoites)” [1 Cor 6:9, KJV]

As you can see above, the King James Version did not contain the word “homosexuals”. Only later translations and editions changed the word to “homosexuals”

Keep in mind that this shift in the translation came not from better, more convincing scholarship, but from cultural shifts within the Christian church.

Let’s look at these two words in a little more detail.

The Greek word “malakoi”, which is the plural of malakos, and the Greek word “arseno-koitai” are both used in 1 Cor 6:9.

First we’ll examine the word “Arseno-koitai”. As we said, many New Testament scholars have argued that Paul invented the compound word himself, since it cannot be found in any other writings of the time to refer to same-sex attraction or relationships.

There were over a dozen other words which Paul could have used if what he wanted to refer to was your everyday, ordinary homosexuality. I won’t go into the list of words, but there are plenty of other terms for same-sex intercourse in the Greek language that Paul left out of his epistle.

Why did he do that? We don’t know. But for whatever reason, Paul instead, chose to use an unfamiliar compound word  – “arseno-koitai” – which is never used in any extant Greek literature with our modern meaning of homosexual.

“Arseno-koitai” is used only once more in the Bible, [1 Timothy 1:10], and Paul never defines its meaning for us.

Are you ready for a big surprise? This next detail might just resolve the mystery of Paul’s invented word for us.

There was a very well-respected Jewish teacher who lived during the lifetime of both Jesus and Paul the Apostle. His name was Philo.  He was one of the most widely read Jewish intellectuals in the first century.

It’s no secret that Paul was highly educated as a Pharisee under Gamaliel. We know because of the works he quoted that Paul also read other philosophers and thinkers of his day. He most certainly would have been well-versed with someone like Philo who, no doubt, held great influence over the Pharisees and Rabbis living in first century Jerusalem.

Here’s what’s most fascinating about Philo. In his commentary on Leviticus 18:22, he argues that what Moses was condemning was shrine prostitution, and he specifically used the term “arseno-koitai”.

Wait. What?

That’s right. It seems that Paul did not invent this compound word. Philo did. And when Philo used the term, he used it to refer to the practice of pagan temple prostitution.

Now, let’s look at the other word that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 6, “Malakoi”.

The word “malakoi” occurs four times, in three verses in the New Testament. In Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25, Jesus uses the word to refer to soft clothing. Jesus never used the word in reference to homosexuality.

The best translation of the word into English is “effeminate”, not “homosexual”.

 In the first century, this term is normally used as an epithet against heterosexual men. As in, “You punch like a girl” or “Don’t cry like a girl”.  The word is never used to refer to someone who is homosexual. It is always used to describe a heterosexual male whose behavior is more feminine, or soft, than male.

 Plato, for example, in his “Republic”, wrote famously that too much music made a man soft [malakoi], and feeble; unfit for battleHe did not argue that it made him a homosexual.

 Aristotle also warned about the dangers of men becoming too soft [malakoi] by over-indulging in pleasures rather than balancing out their lives with acts of physical and mental discipline. Again, he was also not saying that lack of exercise or hard work might make someone turn gay.

Even Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian [and contemporary of Jesus and Paul] used the term “malakos” to describe men who were weak and soft through lack of courage in battle. [See “Wars of The Jews”, 7:338; and “Antiquities of The Jews”, 5:246; 10:194.]

Want to know what’ even more interesting about how first century people understood this term? It turns out that “malakoi” was most often used in reference to men who shaved daily and had no beards. These were often ridiculed and accused of wanting to look like women with clean-shaven faces.

If this is what Paul had in mind in 1 Cor. 6:9, then the reference is more about cultural norms of the day – which is similar to what Paul writes about when he condemns short hair on women and long hair on men and calls this “unnatural” or “against nature”.

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” [1 Cor. 11:14-16]

Is a man with a clean-shaven face an abomination before God? Is he going against his own nature? Or is this an example of First Century cultural norms being equated with God’s eternal purpose?

I think these are worthwhile questions to explore. I also think that the conclusions that many Christians have accepted today are seriously lacking in the necessary study and critical thinking required to justify many of our attitudes towards those with same-sex attractions.

If this were a court of law, I believe that the evidence above is certainly enough to warrant a reasonable doubt about the true meaning of these passages we often use to condemn people who are not like us.

As I said before, I think this topic is very similar to doctrines like Hell and Women in Ministry. At one time you and I might have read the scriptures and said, “It says right here…” without knowing that what we were reading was:

  1. A) Not exactly what was said in the actual Greek
  2. B) Lacking historical background information regarding the culture of those people and
  3. C) Unduly influenced by NT translators who had a bias towards the subject matter

In conclusion, here’s what I’m saying – People who experience a same-sex attraction are not condemned by God. Many of them are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They should be embraced and welcome into the Body of Christ, regardless of who they feel any attraction to. In fact, their attraction to Christ as Lord and Savior is the only one we should take into consideration at all.

Hopefully, we could all agree that as ambassadors of Christ we need to love homosexuals and share the love of Jesus with them rather than attack and condemn them.

Maybe you don’t agree? I don’t know. But for me the Christian’s job is to share and show the love of Jesus to everyone – regardless of their struggle with sin – and allow the Holy Spirit to A) Convict people of their sins and B) Transform them into the image of Christ. Neither of those is the job of the Christian, and therefore, not my job either.

For the record: Being gay is not a sin. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is not sinful.

Christians need to stop assuming that someone who identifies as Gay or as LGBTQ is any more a sinner than they are – because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, remember?

It’s time for Christians to accept one another without judgment or reservation.

Thanks for taking the time to wrestle through this with me.




Keith Giles is the author of several books, including “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance To The Lamb.”


"The sixth of the Ten Commandments ("You shall not murder.") forbids the unjustified taking of ..."

Early Christians On Non-Violence
"John hopes they are rhetorical because he has no answers for them that doesn't make ..."

Yes, Interracial Marriage IS Un-Biblical [But ..."
"Well, it is a Commandment."

Early Christians On Non-Violence
"Interracial marriage is absolutely not unbiblical. In the Torah you are forbidden from marrying particular ..."

Yes, Interracial Marriage IS Un-Biblical [But ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • David Miller

    Keith Giles, you are unfortunate that you pit your lofty thoughts against the combined JudeoChristian tradition of 3,500 years of homophobia. No matter how well you argue & what explanations you present, the fact remains that both religions are fundamentally homophobic at heart & you shall fail to convince the majority of your co-religionists. Better to leave childish things like religion behind. Humanity would then be truer, freer & happier embracing reason instead.

  • Jurgan

    Ultimately, I’ve decided that “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a valid argument, but it’s based on the premise that acting on homosexual orientations is a sin, so the only way to defeat it is to attack the premise. Traditional Christian theology says that sin is a self-destructive state that people need to be saved from because it hurts themselves as much as others. Greed, pride, anger, all the others make it so you are unable to relate to others while hurting them as well. So I’m not in favor of the argument that “you’re a sinner, too, so how can you judge others?” You’re supposed to show compassion for others and help them overcome their sins. The bottom line, though, is that there’s no reason to believe being gay and acting on it hurts the self or others, while the doctrine of homosexuality as sin has led to thousands of people dying of hate crimes, war, and suicide. And since a bad tree can’t bear good fruit and a good tree can’t bear bad fruit, it’s clear which of those is a sin.

  • Al Cruise

    Civilization existed long before JudeoChristian tradition. Reason and history show that civilizations advance toward more peaceful societies when all human potential is recognized equally. Sexual orientation, race, gender, in themselves, play no role when this is universally pursued. History prevails with examples of humans from all demographic’s contributing to the forward progress toward a more peaceful world. History also shows that religious bias based on sexual orientation, race and gender produces the opposite, ie homophobia , discrimination, racism, misogyny, war, hate and horrific violence.

  • Ron

    Paul’s writings are clearer and succinct.

  • Al Cruise

    Yes, ” clearer and succinct.” in the fruit they produced when used by certain theologies such as conservative evangelicalism , that fruit being homophobia , discrimination, racism, misogyny, war, hate and horrific violence.

  • Tianzhu

    FWIW, Plato, who lived centuries before the apostle Paul, had this to say about homosexuality.

    From Plato’s Laws, 636c, written c. 350 B.C.:

    “When male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female.”

    Plato uses the exact phrase – para phusin, “contrary to nature” – that Paul uses in Romans 1. Although the Greeks tolerated homosexuality (within certain boundaries), they most assuredly did not regard it as normal. It is very wrong to claim that Judaism and Christianity are the source of any negative attitudes toward homosexuality.

  • Spirit Plumber

    It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Being the passive partner was considered humiliating. A bisexual man who would be the active partner with men as well as women was considered the ideal.

  • Spirit Plumber
  • No hit or attack from me, Keith. Just a well done and good exegesis. One other take on Paul’s issues with any kind of same-sex relationship, especially between men, is that in Roman culture it was common for powerful men to have younger sex-slaves. An oversimplification of the reality, but basically Paul was objecting to a power-based abuse of sexuality.
    Either way, as you said; being gay is not a sin. If we’re going to talk about sin, then it has to be our rejection of those who are different from us, and abusing the Bible to justify our acts.
    Blessings, and keep on working to inform and educate!

  • P J Evans

    [citations needed]

  • P J Evans

    [citations needed]

  • P J Evans

    [citations needed]

  • Etranger

    I guess the next logical question would be can one be a sexually active gay person and a Christian?

  • Etranger

    Very good point. It is definitely an interesting intellectual and academic exercises Giles (and others) undertake but it flies in the face of actual practice. No matter what Paul wrote or philosophers/biblical scholars of the early centuries wrote, the religion has treated homosexuality as anathema and with much continued gusto at that.

  • Lilly Munster

    None of this wandering through the weeds of ancient ignorance is relevant.
    We know that homosexuality is, and always has been, part of the natural human experience. It has nothing to do with choice, or sin, or anything to do with disobedience, confusion or any desire to offend God. Homosexuality, like brown eyes, left handedness, being tall, or even having been BORN with any trait is natural, normal, and no one’s goddamn business.

  • Lilly Munster

    Why don’t you ask the millions of gay Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists on our planet?

  • Etranger

    Seems like a weird question to pose to gay Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and atheists lol.

  • Teshua

    The bible specifically mentions that homosexuality is an abomination or sin.

    Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one does with a woman; it is an abomination.”
    This literaly means that a man should not lie with another man.

  • Rich

    @Etranger – I was thinking the same thing. I’m a big fan of Keith’s, but I thought his blog intentionally only referenced Homosexual Attraction and not directly Homosexual activity. I’m going to give Keith a little slack here. The Attraction vs. Activity is a line that you can’t cross and come back from at this point. Unfortunately there is a great personal cost for those that cross the line. At some point in our tradition and hopefully soon, it becomes easier. I appreciate the work he’s provided and contribution he’s making.

  • Etranger

    I agree. Christians need to finally accept that there is nothing wrong with a sexually active gay person. Until that point, it makes no sense for a gay person to continue to subscribe to the ideology.

  • Baby steps. For some, this first question needs to be addressed before they can move on to the next one.

  • Jim Olsson

    Excuse me, your feistyness, but your assertion that “It has nothing to do with choice…” is absurd on the face of it. Heterosexual men go to prison and, by choice, engage in same-sex sexual activity for lack of other options. Once initiated, many are, unsurprisingly, ambivalent about their sexuality upon release. Some heterosexual kids enjoy an occasional romp with their same-sex friends when they haven’t been guilted into the notion that they’re going to burn for eternity in hell. If you’re born with a penis and your testes make sperm, your body is heterosexual; the “hard-wiring” is there to make babies. But our sexual preference comes only in part from the testes and other endocrine glands. Much of our identity develops within our minds: I see myself as holy, or as a victim, or as a rocker, or what have you. Peer pressure plays an enormous part of how we perceive ourselves. Will my sexuality vary if I’m the son of a doting mother versus a harsh authoritarian? Will my sexuality vary if I’m raised on foods that promote estrogen versus those that promote testosterone? Will my perception of my sexual self be different if I’m raised by a same sex couple in San Francisco versus a hetero couple in Tehran? We can’t know. We can’t run simultaneous experiments on only one me. — The other thing I wanted to address was that it’s no one’s g.d. business. Well, the poor Christians have been told that the Greek and Roman empires both collapsed when homosexuality prevailed. Then they see the “left-wing homosexual agenda” and they fear that their country is going to collapse the same way. Those who don’t learn from history… and, of course, it’s always the religious nutjobs out there prophesying our imminent demise, so, to be fair, I think when you consider someone with their world view, yeah, it is their damned business.

  • Saying Paul’s writings are clear and succinct shows extreme ignorance.

  • Two points. First, the Leviticus passage (20:13) talks about an ‘ish and a zachar. Unless you speak Hebrew, best to slow down on the certainty. Second, may I ask, do you eat bacon, shrimp, wear cotton/poly blends, etc? Because if you do, that is an abomination. And before you tell me that those are cultural laws, as opposed to the “moral laws” of Lev 18:22; 20:13, I’m going to tell you right now that that is not how Torah works.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Of course they can. If someone is LBGTQ+ it was how they were born and many in the LBGTQ+ community are in long term relationships and more recently were married.
    There are some “?Christian” churches that condemn people who are LBGTQ+ but many of the more progressive churches are fully accepting, and I believe that is what Jesus would have wanted.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    Do you mean that you think that there are no LBGTQ Jews, Muslims or Buddhists? I can tell you that approximately 10% of the population is LBGTQ, so you do the math.

  • Etranger

    No I mean it is a stupid question to ask people who are not the topic of this discussion. It is just a typical anti gay diversion.

  • Etranger

    That seems good. The more people abandon and denigrate the Bible the better in my opinion!!

  • Etranger

    As follow up – very few Christian churches accept sexually active unmarried gay folks. Just look at the gay Christian network – actual gay people who have swallowed the Christian sexual morality koolaid and hate their fellow pleasure-seeking natural gay brethren.

  • Ron

    Clear and concise, then? However you cut it, Giles contorts himself to support his foregone conclusion that homosexuality isn’t sin/ful, in contradiction to Paul’s clear writing.

  • I’m glad arsenokoitai and malakois is so clear to you. How long have you been speaking Koine Greek?

  • Ron

    Are you wiser, more learned or Spirit-filled than all scholars who translated original texts to German and English? In case it isn’t apparent, the question is rhetorical. Reading these translations and concluding homosexuality can be anything but sin requires serious mental gymnastics (deception).

  • I asked you a question. It wasn’t rhetorical. You simply didn’t answer. So, I repeat: How long have you been speaking Koine Greek? And how long have you been studying the Greco-Roman culture of antiquity? Because you need to have a grasp on both before you even begin to exegete Paul. And no, it doesn’t take “mental gymnastics” to conclude other than what you’ve concluded. It takes a serious study of the times in question. For instance, did you know that the sociological construct of “homosexual/heterosexual” is a modern one? Did you know that when Paul is referencing “arsenokoitai/malakois” he isn’t referring to what we would call “homosexual,” but rather, shrine prostitution with “effeminate” men? Hell, even John MacArthur (the super conservative Calvinist) admits that the context of 1 Corinthians is the Corinth culture, who just so happened to engage in this business of shrine prostitution. So, again, no mental gymnastics here; just a diligent pursuit of understanding both the language and the culture in which these things were written. I’m sure you’ve devoted as much effort to this so again, I’d like to know how versed you are in biblical Greek and the times in which the Bible was written.

  • Oh, and I’m curious: when were the “original texts” translated into German and English? Do we even have the original manuscripts any more? (*Hint: no we don’t). And where did the English bibles come from? Was it not the Latin Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic text, which includes a Greek translation of the Masoretic Text (“Old Testament”)? And isn’t the LXX vastly different, in multiple places, from the MT? And isn’t Latin vastly different, and thus, nearly untranslatable from Greek and Hebrew (as well as Aramaic)?

  • Keith,
    The Bible is an utterly anti-homosexual book, cover to cover. It assumes heterosexuality. We know what the words in all the “clobber verses” mean. Appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties are misplaced. For example, “abomination” doesn’t mean “taboo.” It’s means homosexuality turns God’s stomach.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying God is against homosexuality. I have absolutely no idea what God thinks of homosexuality. Nobody does. What I’m saying is that the men who wrote the Bible hated homosexuals.

    God keeps His opinions to Himself, I think.

  • LM

    It’s not the same as having brown eyes and being left-handed or being tall or having been born with any other traits. There is no divine revelation or empirical science that proves that same sex attraction is inborn.

  • LM

    From the essay: “For the record: Being gay is not a sin. Being attracted to someone of the same sex is not sinful. Christians need to stop assuming that someone who identifies as Gay or as LGBTQ is any more a sinner than they are…”

    No, it is not sinful to be attracted to someone of the same sex. But you go to great lengths to dissect Paul’s words with what appears to be an approval of homosexual acts, i.e. that Paul was not condemning those acts. If that were the case, why in I Romans 24-28 are the words ‘degrading’, ‘unnatural’, and ‘dishonored’ used to describe those acts? You make the assumption that homosexual acts are not therefore sinful if they are done outside the context of idol worship. No where does Romans or Paul say that.

    There is nothing to indicate that the Greek word for effeminate “malakoi”, didn’t culturally mean homosexual, nor that “Arsenokoites”, the Greek word for “abusers of themselves with mankind” didn’t mean engaging in same-sex relationships. Some effeminate men do what a woman does: have sex with a man. How do you conclude as definitive that effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind does not indicate homosexual actions? What would “abusers of themselves with mankind” otherwise mean?

    You entirely ignore that Scripture states that God made man and woman for each other, reinforced by Jesus when he taught, “Have you not read that He who made them made them male and female?” God enjoined Adam and Eve to be “fruitful and multiply”. Jesus further cited that ‘man shall leave his father and mother and cling to each other and the two of them will become one flesh.” You further ignore the fact that two people of the same sex cannot physiologically become one flesh, as if that means nothing.

    This essay is the familiar attempt to defend and justify the indefensible and unjustifiable, which is what the secular world wants to hear.

  • LM

    “Christians need to finally accept that there is nothing wrong with a sexually active gay person.”
    I hope someone informs God of that.

  • LM

    No, God’s commands are in the Bible. The authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

  • LM

    With Christ’s death on the Cross the Old Testament was fulfilled and Mosaic law (ceremonial and cultural) was no more. But Christ’s death did not rescind the moral law. He had taught, “Have you not read that He who made them, made them male and female? Man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.“ Jesus spoke of no other form of sexual acts which God ordained for the continuation of humanity.

  • Pal Madden

    Wow! I’m quite shocked. I just read both your new books, and was liberated in a profound way by both. But, this is very, very sad. Sure, we’re to love any and all sinners unconditionally. That’s a given. However, what you have obviously missed and not cited are the exhaustive studies revealing homosexuality not only stands in the face of the God created natural heterosexual sexual orientation, but perhaps more importantly showing homosexuality is a a symptom of a much deeper problem. 

First, in far reaching studies it’s revealed 85-90% of homosexuals come from severely dysfunctional homes – where there was either a single mother over worked, under paid, stressed, and/or angry at man and men no man was there to offer any sort of masculine example. Therefore, a subtle. but powerful angst stood against males, and effeminacy pulled with deep resentment toward men. So, males brought up in these environments eventually looked to men to fulfill the lack of love in their homes, the lack of a man in their lives altogether, and intertwined it with sexual involvement. Second, in the obvious lack of common sense to look at the sex organs we’re created with, and what their intended use is. Hopefully, you have more common sense than to think a man’s penis should be inserted into the anus of another man to gain sexual pleasure. Further, look into at statistics, you never cite, revealing blacks have an astoundingly higher incidence of homosexuality because the single parent families are far more prevalent in the black community. Second, if homosexuals don’t come from a single parent home they typically come from a family environment of extreme verbal abuse or incidents or sexual molestation or high drug use or alcoholism, etc. Not to mention one 1 of 6 male homosexuals have AIDS, and don’t know it. 

In research by Bell and Weinberg from 2500 homosexuals it was discovered 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 or more different sex partners. 83% estimated they had sex with 50 or more partners. 42% had sex with 500 or more. 79% said 50% of their sex partners were strangers. From McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple, married women report 85% sexual fidelity, married men 75.5% sexual fidelity, gay men 4.5% sexual fidelity. In addition, STD’s in all categories are skyrocketing among homosexuals. Now, hopefully you can see the problem is far too complex to just okay gay marriage as being godly or okayed by God. It’s not, not even close. It’s a total perversion. Further, doing so hinders tackling the pain in those that disorients their sexual orientation for in most cases the pain is masked and covered over by the sexual perversion.

  • Pal Madden

    I want to add until you can tackle the statistics cited, why they exist as they so, and accurately discredit the many studies regrading the underlying causes of the vast majority of homosexuality, all you have done here is jump off a twenty foot diving board into a concrete pool empty of water, and dry as a bone.