It is monly argued that the Bible nmns sexual “perversn” such as gay or lbian sex. In earlier posts I discsed the relevant passag of the Old Ttament, to show that they simply nnot be ed the morn bat, sce their very unrstandgs of the phenomena are pletely at…
Contents:
WHY ‘GOD AND THE GAY CHRISTIAN’ IS WRONG ABOUT THE BIBLE AND SAME-SEX RELATNSHIPS
The Bible is nsistent through both Old and New Ttaments nfirmg that homosexualy is s (Genis 19:1–13; Levic 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; Ju 1:7). The difference between the Old and New Ttaments is that the New Ttament offers hope and rtoratn to those ught up the s of homosexualy through the reemg power of J. The New Ttament says that homosexualy is a “shameful lt” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act, ” an abandonment of “natural relatns” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdog” (1 Corthians 6:9), and “sexual immoraly and perversn” (Ju 1:7).
Homosexualy rri a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is ntrary to the sound doctre” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the ss that bar people om the kgdom of God (1 Corthians 6:9). The six proposns that follow, nsired cumulatively, lead to the ncln that the New Ttament do not provi any direct guidance for unrstandg and makg judgments about homosexualy the morn world.
” In fact, the very notn of “homosexualy”—like that of “heterosexualy, ” “bisexualy, ” and even “sexual orientatn”—is sentially a morn ncept that would simply have been untelligible to the New Ttament wrers. The word “homosexualy” me to e only the latter part of the neteenth century, and, as New Ttament scholar Victor Pl Furnish not, and related terms “prume an unrstandg of human sexualy that was possible only wh the advent of morn psychologil and soclogil analysis. Proposn 3: Two of the three passag that possibly refer to homosexualy are simply more-or-ls miscellaneo talogu of behavrs that are regard as unacceptable, wh no particular emphasis placed on any dividual em the list.