# What parts of the Bible ban homosexuality? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128 "2009-03-11T21:02:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/121 "2009-03-17T21:35:32Z")
Since any debate on the matter is unwinnable (and personally the only reason I give a damn what the Bible says on any matter is because of it being cited by people who invariably don’t read Greek and couldn’t tell you the difference between a Paroshim and a Zadikim or between a tetrarch and a terrapin yet feel they’re experts on interpreting it for the modern world), please pardon a slight hijack. Something I’ve wondered is- several times Paul calls on slaves to serve their masters obediently: > [@](#): > > Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. The above is from Colossians but is echoed in Ephesians, Romans, Corinthians, and other Pauline books. At this time it was perfectly legal and even common- and Paul would most certainly have known this- for wealthy men who were so inclined to have sex with male slaves, and some slaves entered into slavery voluntarily (it beat starving to death). So long as it was relatively discreet and the master was the penetrative partner there was no real social stigma to it either in the Roman and Greek worlds (though no doubt there was some “eww” factors to some). Brothels contained both male and female slaves. So, this in mind, could it be argued that Paul, if he said having sex with other men was inherently sinful, could side item that with " unless of course you’re a sex slave, in which case- back up that bumper, shake the tail feather and give him all you got, amigo!" And suppose now that the male slave (catamite, concubitor, whatever) _likes_ his job, even enjoys sex with his master— is he still committing a sin by submitting? ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/122 "2009-03-17T22:09:03Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > No, it’s an argument that the _translators_ weren’t divinely inspired. If they weren’t, then your KJV isn’t the literal word of god; it’s a possibly fallible translation, and to get to the _real_ word of God you’d have to take great care to ensure that you understand what was _originally_ written, as best as you possibly can. > > I mean, unless you don’t care if God’s word is completely perverted by the wiles of man, and all. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The argument is that even if the authors were divinely inspired, it’s still often difficult to impossible to understand what they meant. If you can’t be sure what the message actually _tells you_, then it’s not of much utility that it was divinely inspired. I’m not one who will say that the Bible is inerrant. But I do think that there are some pretty serious implications behind the phrase “divinely inspired”. If the Bible is, in fact, divinely inspired then I think it carries along a number of things with it. For instance, I believe that God is omniscient. If he would divinely inspire words where important parts of the message are consistently mistranslated, IMO it is inconsistent with the divine part of the inspiration. To this end, I believe that the most important stuff, like salvation and sins, are not going to be lost in translation. So, my argument is the exact opposite, that you can have a reasonable amount of certainty in what the message says because it is divinely inspired, not the other way around as you two suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/123 "2009-03-17T22:13:05Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > If he would divinely inspire words where important parts of the message are consistently mistranslated, IMO it is inconsistent with the divine part of the inspiration. To this end, I believe that the most important stuff, like salvation and sins, are not going to be lost in translation. In a previous post you said that the Bible was divinely inspired. Now is it just parts of the Bible? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/124 "2009-03-17T22:15:57Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I’m not one who will say that the Bible is inerrant. But I do think that there are some pretty serious implications behind the phrase “divinely inspired”. If the Bible is, in fact, divinely inspired then I think it carries along a number of things with it. For instance, I believe that God is omniscient. If he would divinely inspire words where important parts of the message are consistently mistranslated, IMO it is inconsistent with the divine part of the inspiration. To this end, I believe that the most important stuff, like salvation and sins, are not going to be lost in translation. > > So, my argument is the exact opposite, that you can have a reasonable amount of certainty in what the message says because it is divinely inspired, not the other way around as you two suggest. You are grossly underestimating the incompetence, bias, and occasional downright malice of humans. No matter how inspired the original text was, if the translater writes english text which does not mean the same thing, then that, as they say, is that. (And, the “important stuff”? Homosexuality is mentioned, what, half a dozen times, if even that often, in the entire bible?) ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/125 "2009-03-17T22:34:40Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > In a previous post you said that the Bible was divinely inspired. Now is it just parts of the Bible? No, that was just poor word choice on my part; I was trying to keep the point brief, but I can see where the confusion is. I was trying to say that if the divinely inspired message is lost in translation, IMO that it is inconistent with the omnscience of the divine being that gave the inspiration. However, to that end, each individual word, phrase, or possibly even several sentences aren’t exactly important. The important part of the message from, say, the New Testament is stuff like who Jesus is, why he was here, how we obtain salvation, what we should and shouldn’t do, etc. It would take a whole lot of mistranslations to change the underlying message, but that would also be easily noticeable. That doesn’t seem to be the case here to me and, having seen the arguments on both sides, while I can now see how the argument that homosexuality isn’t explicitly banned is phrased, it looks like it contradicts my assertion that the message won’t be consistently lost in translation where, that would be the case if it were true that it wasn’t banned. However, it REALLY doesn’t matter because the underlying message of salvation is still unequivocally clear and, even if it is a sin, it isn’t any more serious than any other sin, so it really only makes a difference IF you believe it is a sin AND YET you continue to do it. And if you claim to have salvation, and yet continue to knowingly indulge in things you know to be sinful, then you missed the entire point. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/126 "2009-03-17T22:35:24Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > OK, that’s a fair point. Since we’re all sinners, in thought or in deed, then in your eyes, being homosexual or straight are basically the same when it comes to the morality of it all. According to scripture homosexuality is the result of sin and in itself will incur a curse, so is sexual promiscuity and adultery, there is a form of straight sex that in itself is not under a curse, but a blessing. So the morality is not the same. That does not make the straight person sinless, just that homosexuality is not a sin of his. But if you violate any part of the law it’s the same guilt wise as if you violated the whole law. > [@](#): > > I agree that there is no difference in the morality of a gay or straight person, so we’re are in agreement there (roughly – I think most people are basically moral, and my impression is that you think all people are sinners, but can be saved, but we seem to agree on the equivalence. Gay and straight people are all sinners, but as pointed out above straigh sex is not necessarily a sin, though homosexuality is, if you are under the law. > [@](#): > > So, I guess you would agree that, even if there are parts of the bible that ban homosexuality, since it is on a par with all other sins, including the ones that everyone commits (in thought or in deed), gay or straight, there’s no reason to especially condemn gay people. We’re all sinners and continue to sin and have only one path to salvation. There is no reason to condemn any sinner, we all need the salvation that Jesus offers, we all need the love of God and His forgiveness and healing. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/127 "2009-03-17T22:37:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I haven’t offered a reading. I don’t know what the word was supposed to mean and haven’t claimed otherwise. I’m not trying to argue for a particular definition, my claim is that the definition is _unknown_ (but that staright up “homosexuality” is unlikely). It would still be nice to see some cites for known scholars with similar positions. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/128 "2009-03-17T22:38:09Z")
> [@simster](#): > > And here we see exactly why 2000 year old texts\* from a different culture, translated from a different (and mostly no longer used language) written by people who are no longer around to answer questions, should not be considered hard and fast rules for a modern society… God’s Word is eternal, just as completely valid today as back then. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/129 "2009-03-17T22:55:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You are grossly underestimating the incompetence, bias, and occasional downright malice of humans. No matter how inspired the original text was, if the translater writes english text which does not mean the same thing, then that, as they say, is that. I also think you’re missing the implications of what “divinely inspired” means. If God is omniscient, which is a pretty standard belief in Christianity, then it just wouldn’t make sense if the entire message is lost to posterity when it’s been translated to another language. If the message is lost, then it basically means that salvation is only for those who could read the initial languages before they were translated and everyone else is damned. And I, quite frankly, think you’re over-estimating the human element. Yes, there’s going to be incompetence and bias and possibly even malice, but it’s not like it’s being translated by just one person or that translations aren’t constantly re-evaluated by scholars. The original Greek is still there. So yes, it doesn’t necessarily say exactly the same thing, but that doesn’t mean that the translated meaning is necessarily different in a way that loses the intent. That is, there culture didn’t have a concept of homsexuality as a sexual orientation akin to what we have today, but more as just performing homosexual acts. I think a more important question to be asking is, if they were trying to discuss the concept that we have today, how exactly would they address it. It seems to me that it’s fairly reasonable to say that, absent that concept, the fact that they would be prohibiting things that are similar is indicative that they would likely prohibit that concept as well. > [@](#): > > (And, the “important stuff”? Homosexuality is mentioned, what, half a dozen times, if even that often, in the entire bible?) Please don’t read more into what I said than I did; I never said that homosexuality is an “important” part. It’s by no means the most important thing in there because, as I said, it’s just another sin, but the fact that it was repeated in multiple places is likely indicative of something. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/130 "2009-03-17T23:06:17Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > It would still be nice to see some cites for known scholars with similar positions. Positions on what, exactly? That the definition of the word is unknown? Try some of **Shodan’s** links. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/131 "2009-03-17T23:24:51Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > God’s Word is eternal, just as completely valid today as back then. Even if I completely alter the text to completely different words that mean completely different things? Cool! > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I also think you’re missing the implications of what “divinely inspired” means. If God is omniscient, which is a pretty standard belief in Christianity, then it just wouldn’t make sense if the entire message is lost to posterity when it’s been translated to another language. If the message is lost, then it basically means that salvation is only for those who could read the initial languages before they were translated and everyone else is damned. Well, if he was _serious_ about this, he wouldn’t leave it to man at all, would he? (Which is an argument that the translators were divinely inspired, I suppose. For all the different translations!) > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > And I, quite frankly, think you’re over-estimating the human element. Yes, there’s going to be incompetence and bias and possibly even malice, but it’s not like it’s being translated by just one person or that translations aren’t constantly re-evaluated by scholars. The original Greek is still there. I still know people who use the KJV. In my opinion, there were almost certainly tremendous margins for error, bias, and intentional manipulation in the translation process for _that_ text. Probably less so with more recent translations, but there is demonstrably still disagreement and debate as to what is correct. This thread is my cite. 😃 > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > So yes, it doesn’t necessarily say exactly the same thing, but that doesn’t mean that the translated meaning is necessarily different in a way that loses the intent. That is, there culture didn’t have a concept of homsexuality as a sexual orientation akin to what we have today, but more as just performing homosexual acts. I think a more important question to be asking is, if they were trying to discuss the concept that we have today, how exactly would they address it. It seems to me that it’s fairly reasonable to say that, absent that concept, the fact that they would be prohibiting things that are similar is indicative that they would likely prohibit that concept as well. And you are now doing your own editorializing on the meaning of the text, expanding prohibitions from stated sins to “similar” sins. You are basically writing scripture in your own head! Doesn’t that feel empowering! (To me, it’s scary when other people do it. Though if _I_ was religious, I would _totally_ twist scripture to my own evil ends.) Truth be told, especially in an instance like this where there are only half a dozen mentions in the entire book, and some of the relevent words _still_ have ambiguous or unknown meaning, it strikes me as very easy and even likely that the intent of the text would be perturbed in translation. (Whether the crucifiction was alledged to occur, not so much.) > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Please don’t read more into what I said than I did; I never said that homosexuality is an “important” part. It’s by no means the most important thing in there because, as I said, it’s just another sin, but the fact that it was repeated in multiple places is likely indicative of something. Okay. But given the size of the book, and how _rarely_ it was mentioned (with the translations in some places being uncertain, even), I think _that_ is indicitave of something. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/132 "2009-03-18T00:06:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Positions on what, exactly? That the definition of the word is unknown? Try some of **Shodan’s** links. Somebody accused Shodan of dodging the request for cites. As someone who is a bit undecided on this issue I’d like to see what kind of scholarly support your claim of ambiguousness has. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/133 "2009-03-18T00:13:10Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Somebody accused Shodan of dodging the request for cites. As someone who is a bit undecided on this issue I’d like to see what kind of scholarly support your claim of ambiguousness has. What would the nature of such support be. How would you support the thesis " ‘Marzipolous’ does not mean ‘Contrary’ "? Or the thesis " ‘Marzipolous’ is of undetermined definition’ "? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/134 "2009-03-18T00:22:55Z")
How about a semi-scholarly treatise on the different possibilities and their likelyhood? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/135 "2009-03-18T00:30:55Z")
The meaning of the word is unknown. i am not arguing for any definition. I’m saying that nobody knows what the word means. A number of links already posted say that nobody knows what the word means. I’ve also given a summary of known instances of how the word is attested in Greek. You’re asking me to cite a negative here. It’s incumbant upon the person arguing for a specific definition who needs to back it up with attestations. Anyone who wants to argue that _arsenokoites_ means “homosexual” needs to explain why the word can be found in reference to married heterosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/136 "2009-03-18T02:23:42Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I’m not one who will say that the Bible is inerrant. But I do think that there are some pretty serious implications behind the phrase “divinely inspired”. If the Bible is, in fact, divinely inspired then I think it carries along a number of things with it. For instance, I believe that God is omniscient. If he would divinely inspire words where important parts of the message are consistently mistranslated, IMO it is inconsistent with the divine part of the inspiration. To this end, I believe that the most important stuff, like salvation and sins, are not going to be lost in translation. > > So, my argument is the exact opposite, that you can have a reasonable amount of certainty in what the message says because it is divinely inspired, not the other way around as you two suggest. You realize, of course, that the collection of books that we commonly call the “Bible” was put together by the vote of men, many years after the books were written, at the direction of Emporer Constantine - who at the time, wasn’t even a “Christian”, right? Further, you also realize that not only were a number of books left out (they didnt fit the model) purportedly written by the apostles (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel Of Peter, etc…) but that that version of the “Bible” was later revised to exclude books that the original editors chose? So, who decided that the original works were “Inspired of God”? And if they were, what made later people decide “no, these really aren’t after all”? And, if you want to talk about lost in translation - In the book of Acts, Peter and Paul are arguing over what rules had to be followed - and they had to come to an agreement, doesn’t seem so divinely inspired if direct followers of Christ, who heard the message ‘personally’ have already started to differ on the instructions. So, within a couple of years (generously) they were already debating Christ’s message and ‘rules’ for the followers, 300 years later they were deciding what books belonged, a few hundred more years and they are again disagreeing over which of those books “really” belonged… So, seems the “Lost in translation” happened long before we entered into this debate. So, even if you get beyond all that and decide that the “Bible” is still the “Word of God”, you still have to figure out if the message still applies today as it did then - clearly not all of them do - and if some don’t, then that raises the question what you are going to pick and choose to follow out of it. And if you get to pick and choose, who’s to say that your picking is any better than anyone elses? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/137 "2009-03-18T02:34:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The meaning of the word is unknown. i am not arguing for any definition. I’m saying that nobody knows what the word means. I know what you think. I don’t know Greek but the idea that “nobody knows what it means” seems like an overstatement. Is there always _some_ room for debate? I’m sure there is. I’d like to see some some discussion by scholars. If you don’t (or can’t) supply that just say so and I’ll go to someone else. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/138 "2009-03-18T02:43:49Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I know what you think. I don’t know Greek but the idea that “nobody knows what it means” seems like an overstatement. Is there always _some_ room for debate? I’m sure there is. I’d like to see some some discussion by scholars. If you don’t (or can’t) supply that just say so and I’ll go to someone else. I think the implication is simpler than that - There are many words that have a certain range of meaning - thanks to other textual references, a translation can be offered. In this case, it seems that there are so few references of it, or there are so many with no distinct pattern, (clearly references x here, y there, s somewhere else) that being able to say with certainty that the author meant Y is nearly impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/139 "2009-03-18T03:01:14Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I know what you think. I don’t know Greek but the idea that “nobody knows what it means” seems like an overstatement. Is there always _some_ room for debate? I’m sure there is. I’d like to see some some discussion by scholars. If you don’t (or can’t) supply that just say so and I’ll go to someone else. If we are talking _arsenokaites_, **Diogenes** is stating more or less the exact truth. Paul apparently coined the term – it never appears before him writings, and every reference after is either a quote of, commentary on, or allusion to his use of it. It consists of the roots for “male” and “bed”/“lay with”, and Paul decided to use it in place of the dozens of words for “guy who engages in gay sex” that were in common use in Greek. There’s a strong suggestion that it refers to those who patronize the enslaved boy prostitutes of Corinth, for which the city was notorious even by last 1st Century standards. There’s a suggestion it was coined to echo the rather odd phrasing of Lev. 18:22 which conjoins “man” and “lying” (reclining, as for sex, not prevaricating). But we cannot be sure of what Paul meant, Translators have rendered it “abusers of themselves”, “abusers of themselves with mankind,” “homosexual offenders,” and several other uses – but, like my comments above, these are educated guesses. There are a number of good sources on the passage – mine are mostly secondary, so I’ll wait to see if anyone has good scholarly cites before giving htem. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2009, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128/140 "2009-03-18T03:06:16Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Not exactly, a follower of Jesus is a follower of Jesus and a child of God - that is important as that is his identity from that point on, so this person is not a homosexual, but a child of God doing the work of God. > > I can see a case that someone who was a homosexual but is now a child of God, may in his work in reaching the lost, be asked to enter or continue a homosexual relationship in their work of reaching the lost, or they might be delivered of that. > > It’s what you place first, your flesh or His Spirit. If you can keep Him first then you are not under any law. But for many the trouble is the lust of the flesh can cause one to stumble and backslide, in which case it is better to avoid it altogether, till you are strong enough to overcome it. > > Here is what the Lord warned Cain: > > You must be the master over the sin, not make the sin your master. Yeah that’s a big maybe. Or maybe a loving relationship between any two people is fine in the eyes of God and sex doesn’t make it wrong. Maybe it’s homophobic Christians who fight to keep gays from being married that are the real unrepentant sinners. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-parts-of-the-bible-ban-homosexuality/489128.md?page=8)