Is Homosexuality a sin?
Is it shown to be wrong in the Bible and harmful by medical science?
Most assuredly YES!
Gen 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [The word “wife” here (ish-shaw', naw-sheem') is found 780 times in the Old Testament, and when used in reference to a person(s) it always refers to either a women or a wife (singular or plural), but NEVER TO A MAN. Likewise the word for wife (goo-nay') in the New Testament (cf. Mat. 19:5).]
Lev 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." [homosexual relations controvert the natural order established by God, and are morally perverse and anatomically incorrect]
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them. ..." [The severity of this sin, along with others, is seen in the penalty it requires. No nation has escaped Divine judgment for sanctioning it.]
Genesis 19:5 And they [the men of Sodom] called unto Lot and said unto him, "Where are the men who came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." [the word "know" in this context is contextually demonstrated to mean sexually (see v.8), as it is in the next reference and in certain other occurrences of the word].
Judges 19:22 "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about and beat at the door, and spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring forth the man who came into thine house, that we may know him."
Jude 1:7 ".. even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." [From the primary singular sinful practice of Sodom comes the term "Sodomite" to describe those who practice sexual acts with "strange flesh” - that of their own gender - rather than with the opposite sex, which is morally sanctioned i marriage and anatomically correct].
1Kings 14:24 "And there were also sodomites in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel."
Romans 1:26, 27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly [shameful], and receiving in themselves [in their own bodies] that recompense for their error which was meet." [A full reading of this chapter reveals that the sin of men "leaving the natural use of the woman" to engage in sexual acts with each other is the last stage of a number of progressive steps of degeneration. God warns and history reveals that when a nation yields to such it's demise is not far behind. The only hope for redemption is to repent and surrender in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ, "who loved me and gave Himself for me" - Gal. 2:20]
1Corinthians 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ..”
Medical studies reveal that the overwhelming majority of male homosexuals have sexual relations with a multiplicity of partners over their lives, and that the practice thereof generally results in disease and premature death, AIDS being only one of the possible causative factors.
Among other things, those practicing homosexuality can expect:
Substantially reduced life expectancy [up to 1,000 times greater chance of dying from just AID's alone], and or dependence upon drug 'cocktails” to prolong life.
Greatly increased likelihood of infectious hepatitis which increases the risk of potentially fatal liver cancer.
Often fatal rectal cancer
Many types of bowel and other infectious diseases
A much higher likelihood of depression leading to suicide.
And worse of all, the danger of an developing a mind that is increasingly resistant to truth and that will not/cannot yield to Christ.
As concerns homosexual marriage, research reveals that they typically last less than 2 years, and have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership.
God's laws are good and to our benefit when obeyed. We dishonor God and help no one by justifying sin (such as sodomy) which is demonstrably shown to be overall harmful physically, mentally, and spiritually. Only by admitting our sinfulness and guilt and turning instead to the Lord Jesus can one be saved from sin to follow Him.
More information may be seen at
(The above sources are not formally affiliated with this tract or ministry).
Freedom, not Sodom
There's freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue;
but there still must be laws, things you just can't do.
You can't marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet;
a sheep, or a goat, at least not yet!
That how is it with homsexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy;
men lying with men as with women, is perversity!
That they're not designed that way, tis easy to perceive,
but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.
A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that's confusion;
calling evil good, and exchanging light for darkness is sure delusion!
History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust,
When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it's own lusts
JESUS can set you free
There is a God, your Creator, who has created you to know Him and who has given us both good things and good laws, yet “All have sinned” (Rm. 3:23), breaking His good laws and misusing the good things which He has given us for our benefit.
Sin has separated you from God, the Source of Life, resulting in Spiritual Death (Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1). Man tries to satisfy the emptiness in his soul by making created things or persons his god. Whether it be the "lust of the flesh" [sensual pleasure], "the lust of the eyes" [possessions] or "the pride of life" [prestige or power] (1 Jn. 2:16), it is all a vain and sinful attempt to find security and fulfillment apart from the True and Living God. We cannot justify willfully sinning by saying “I was born that way.”
You were created to be able to enjoy God in Heaven, but no sin will be, or should be, allowed into Heaven (Is. 59:1, 2; Rv. 21:27), If you die in your sins you will not rejoice in Heaven, but will end up in a place that is just the opposite of Heaven, a real place called the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:15; 21:8).
The Only Way you can have your sins forgiven and get back to God is through the Lord JESUS CHRIST, whom the Father sent to save you (Mt. 25:41, 46; Rv. 20:10-15; Acts 4:12; 13:39).
It is this JESUS, the Son of God, who came down from Heaven to live a completely sinless and perfect life, showing us what God is like in His love and righteousness, And after doing everything “right,” it is He who took responsibility for all we have done wrong, paying for our sins with His own sinless blood on the cross of His death. And having done all, it is He who rose from the dead to Heaven as Savior and Judge (Act 10:39-43). It is this JESUS who now calls you to repent and turn to God and receive Him as Lord and Savior.
What you do with Jesus, “God manifest in the flesh,” reveals what you ultimately love and where you will spend ETERNITY. If you die without Christ - if you have not cast all your faith upon the Risen Lord Jesus to save you and had all your sins washed away by His precious blood - then you must face the just punishment which your sins requires.
We pray that instead you will choose Christ and His Life today. Turn to the Lord Jesus from sin and and call upon Him to save you. Then be baptized and follow Him with a Bible-believing/preaching church!
For more help see
(The above ministry is not formally affiliated with this tract or ministry).
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/c/christinsouldr/ (email available on site)
PRO HOMOSEXUAL INTERPRETATIONS (AND MARRIAGE) REFUTED BY THE WORD OF GOD
(All Scriptures from the King James Version)
Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob (Is. 41:21).
God's laws are "holy, and just and good" (Rm. 7:12) and are given of necessity (Gal. 3:19) for our benefit, thanks be to God. Obedience to God brings life, while sin works death. The latter is clearly the case as regards the practice of homosexuality, which the Bible manifestly condemns in all it's forms (Gn. 19:1-11; Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Dt. 23:17; Jdg. 19:22; 1Ki.14:24; 22:46; 2Ki. 23:7; Rm. 1:26, 27; 1Cor. 16:9; 1Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7).
This treatise is made in response to some of the attempts to distort the intent or meaning of the prohibitions against the practice of homosexuality, Homosexual apologists (apologist meaning one who gives an answer), realize that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth which condemns their destructive practice. Which practice effectually works against the purpose of the laws of God, that of both the spiritual and temporal well being of souls, to the glory of God. They therefore have spent an inordinate amount of time and "creative writing" seeking to distort the Biblical teaching concerning homosexuality, which justly condemns it as it as sin, and that of a most perverse kind.
History has and will testify to the wisdom of the laws of God, and of those who reverence and obey them, and the foolishness of those who rebel against God.
Most but not all of the above Biblical references will be dealt with, as i will be examining the principal ones which the adversaries to truth must seek to distort. In this response, i will not appeal to "church fathers" on this matter, or other fallible ecclesiastical authorities. Rather, i will stick with that which has been tried and found to be faithful in giving us what we need for life and Godliness, the Word of God. There will sometimes be found some some redundancy in answers, as some points are applicable to more than one question, and also helps the issues to be answered somewhat independently.
The reader is urged to prayerfully consider the following, with a heart that truly wants nothing less than total submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, The Way, The Truth, and The Life," and "who loved me and gave Himself for me" (Eph. 2:20).
Gn. 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
The reason that the angels were sent to destroy Sodom was not because of homosexuality, for the Bible states that the iniquity of Sodom was "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezk. 16:49). The word "know" as used in Gn. 19:5 means to be acquainted. They men of Sodom came to Lot's house because they wanted to know who the strangers were. Their sin was that they were inhospitable to the strangers and thus were destroyed for a "serious breach of hospitality."
Such a theory is easily seen as non-sense when the account is read in it's entirety (Gn. 19).
The angels, sent by God to Sodom because their sin was "very grievous" (Gn. 18:20), arrive in Sodom and meet Lot at the gate. They are willing to stay in the street, but Lot constrains them to abide with his family. Once there, "the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. But Lot goes out, closes the door and pleads with them, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly" (v. 5). He then goes on to even offer his daughters, "which have not known man", that they may do what they please with them. They will have nothing to do with it, threaten to do worse to Lot: "And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door But the men [angels] put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door." All this is supposed because (as some suppose) they wanted a non-sexual acquaintance with the men.
The homo-apologist position is that the crowd outside Lot's door were alarmed that the strangers in Lot's house posed a danger to Sodom (which they certainly did!), and thus they simply wanted to "know" them in the sense of examining their purpose, etc. This interpretation is disallowed by the use of the word "know." That the word "know" here means sexually, as it does in a few other instances in the Bible (such as in Gn. 4:17, 25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17, 35, 1 Kg. 1:4; Mt. 1:25), is obvious by observing that that Lot offered his daughters to them as women "who have not known man." This cannot simply mean acquainted, as it cannot be believed that Lot's daughters were never acquainted with men! Rather, Lot presented his daughters as virgins (even though v. 14 indicates Lot lied to protect the angels, as they apparently were married). What advantage would it serve for Lot to offer his daughters as women who had never "known" man, if all they wanted to do was to interrogate the men? And though women were afforded lower status than men, it seems unlikely that interrogating women would not be wicked but interrogating men would be. Instead, the whole description is one of a crowd filled with lust (see Jude 7 below). Lot knew the crowd was seeking something sensual, namely that they might "know" the men as they might "know" the proffered daughters, if they were so inclined. It is thus that Lot told them they could do with his daughters as they pleased. But they would have none of Lot's offer, and threatened to do worse to Lot than they would to the men, and "pressed sore upon the man."
One only has to look at a similar occurrence, in Judges 19:14-25ff, to see this was of sexual intent.
In this account, a man (who is no model of virtue himself) is traveling back home after fetching his departed concubine. In a strange city, and finding no one that would receive him, he is taken in by an old man. No sooner had they ate, but "certain sons of Belial" came and demanded of the old man, "Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him" (v. 22). Like unto Lot, the man offers his own daughter and the other man's concubine, saying "unto this man do not so vile a thing" (the word for "vile" is most often used in sexual sense). At first it appears they refused, hoping for the man, but being given the concubine, "they abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." The man later declared that they "committed lewdness [a word always used sexually before this] and folly in Israel" (Jdg. 20:6).
It should be quite obvious here that, as in Gn. 19, the crowd's desire to "know" the guest (s) was clearly sexual The only substantial difference was that they finally took the substitute offer (which was also sin). It is also of note that nowhere else but Gn. 19 is there an similar occurrence of the phraseology (that we might know him/them) in dealing with intruders. And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. As we shall see, there is no provision for any sanctified kind of homo-sexual activity, such as is provided by God for heterosexuals by marriage. And all sexual unions outside marriage is fornication (and that of homosexual relations is of a most perverse manner).
As for the basic iniquity of Sodom as seen in Ezek. 16:49, while "pride, fulness of bread" and indifference to the plight of the poor were their overall sins, not all of what they did is stated (other Biblical summations do likewise). As Jude declares (see below), they were "giving themselves over to fornication." Genesis 19 deals with a specific manifestation of that fornication (sex outside of marriage). Yet the chief sin of any man or society is idolatry, worshiping anything less than the One True God, out of which all else flows. As Romans 1 shows homosexual activity to be a sexual culmination of idolatrous steps of degeneration, it is likely that the practice of what came be called sodomy was a latter development, a practice which they did in their "idleness," and which was the capstone of their iniquity going before judgment. Sodom was thus destroyed (physically)!
Jude v.7, which deals with the end of spiritual and moral declension, declares: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
As the word of other (heterosis) is usually rendered other, another, altered or even next, the meaning is unclear. It could be that the condemnation of Sodom was that they sought to commit fornication with angels.
The above speculation certainly affirms that the purpose of the men of Gn. 19 was that of fornication, so rather than strengthening the homosexual position it actually weakens it. The purpose of the men wanting to "know" the angels appearing as men (and who, being angels, were probably handsome) becomes more obviously sexual. And by their own words it is also quite evident that the men of Sodom believed Lot's guests to be men (if not who would even dare to mess with angels?). Unlike the parallel account in Judges 19 which confirms the "men with men" sexual intent of Genesis 19, there is no instance of men seeking sexual relations with angels anywhere. Moreover the Bible condemns fornication of any sort, but unlike that for heterosexuals, nowhere is any provision made for any kind of sanctified sexual union between people of the same gender. Therefore all sexual activity between those of the same gender is condemned, just as premarital and extramarital relations is between those of opposite gender.
Finally, as it is clearly stated that Sodom and Gomorrha were giving themselves over to fornication, the "strange flesh" aspect is that it is indeed "strange" or aberrant for men to lust after men, as the men of Sodom were manifestly given to do.
Lev. 18:22 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Rather than accepting the plain and clear meaning of such texts, homosexual apologists vainly seek to explain away such texts, and can be quite inventive in doing do. Consider the following:
1. This is part of the Levitical holiness code for priests; it does not apply to all persons .
2. This is part of the law contrasting pagan nations with Israel, and idolatry with the worship of the one true God: Therefore it only condemns things like temple prostitution that were part of pagan idolatrous practices. Other prohibitions (and death penalties) are repeated elsewhere, but the prohibition against men lying with men is not, because it refers to religious, "ritual uncleaness."
3. This is simply part of the ceremonial laws for uncleanness, which was later done away with for Christians (Acts 15:19, 20).
4. The word "sodomy" or "sodomite" is not a Biblical word.
5. The word "abomination" refers to ceremonial violations rather than to things that are inherently evil.
1. This first objection is easily refuted by observing to whom these laws were addressed: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them .." (Lev. 18:1). These were laws which Moses, the law giver, was instructed to give to all of Israel. A fuller reading of the rest of the laws makes it clear that they (and 18:22) are universally applicable, and were in no way restricted only to the priests. It is no more right for an American to lie carnally with his neighbour's wife (18:20) than for an average Israelite or a Levitical priest. The prohibition against woman sexually lying down with a beast (18:23), also shows the universal application of the verses before it, as there were no women priests. Furthermore, the nations to be conquered were judged for practicing these sins.
2. Such a conclusion is based upon a strained, complex but vain attempt to link the plain prohibition in Lv. 18:22 (and 20:13) against men lying with men to Dt. 23:15. The latter deals specifically with the practice of Sodomy as part of a pagan temple activity, so that that sodomy would only be conditionally wrong, that is if it was done as part of an idolatrous pagan religious rite. This logically would require that other things listed in Leviticus 18, such as familial nakedness, bestiality (lying with animals), killing ones children as an offering to Molech (a false god), stealing, lying, disrespect to parents, hating your neighbor, etc., be held as wrong only if other nations did it and or if it was done in conjunction with formal idolatry (though again, all sins are ultimately because of idolatry). Yet it is manifest that such things are basically evil themselves and the condemnation of them transcends mere religious uncleanness. Therefore their attempt to explain away the clear and basic prohibitions against men lying with men requires more imagination. It is thus that a radical significance is claimed for the presence of (supposedly) only two specific condemnations of sodomy (by description) in the Bible, and one mention of it's death sentence.
Yet neither an absence of a specific prohibition against men lying with men where accompanying commands are reiterated (such as in Deuteronomy 20), nor only one mention of it's death penalty warrants relegating it to a prohibition that simply addressed a more immediate problem of pagan temple prostitution. If the reason the death penalty is not reiterated is because it only related to homosexual temple prostitution acts, then considering the recurrent problem with such in backslidden Israel (1 Kg. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kg. 23:7), a reiteration of the death penalty (as well as general prohibitions) regarding it would have been in order. Surely the homo-apologist does not presume that God mandated capital punishment only for homosexual practices if coupled with Canaanite idolatry at that time, but He did not for whatever syncretistic brands of idolatry they practiced it with hundreds of years later? Rather, it is more likely that such a manifestly unnatural act required less repetition of it's prohibition.
According to the principal in which the law was "added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19), the unnatural and (normally) shameful nature of homosexuality is so self evident that i should think a two fold, O.T specific condemnation of it should be sufficient. And the destruction of Sodom had become legend among the people of Israel. Genesis 19, Judges 19, and Romans 1 makes it clear that homosexual lust, which again God makes no provision for, is at the end of degeneration. Abhorrent practices like bestiality also have less mention than idolatry, the latter for which Israel in general had a manifest proclivity for. All in all, homosexual relations are prohibited in the O.T alone just as clearly as sexual relations with animals.
Furthermore, that the two Levitical prohibitions are universal in scope is clearly evident in the language of these two commands, which yields nothing that even intimates that it has only a unique religious application. The address "Speak unto the children of Israel" which Lv. 18 begins with, is not to just to temple workers but to the people in general, and under it come both ceremonial (which do have efficacy themselves) and transcendent moral laws. The command, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," like the 10 commandments ("Thou shalt not"), applies to every individual2. Likewise the command, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them," applies to every man, not just to a specific "profession." The specification is the act - a man lying sexually with man - and unlike heterosexual fornication, there is not even a hint that it is only conditionally wrong. The next verse, which also belongs to the category of unnatural sex, "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:" is also a universal prohibition, one that cannot be simply relegated to a prohibition against a religious cultic practice. Like all the other (17) sins in this chapter (uncovering the nakedness of ones kin, incest, adulteries, etc.), the prohibition against homosexual fornication transcends time and culture. Men not lying with men as with women is an UNCONDITIONAL command. Even the injunction against burning up your kids to please false gods, has both an immediate application and a universal, perpetual one.
Though the rather sparse prohibition against men sexually lying with men and a solitary mention the death penalty for it may seem interesting, both the language, context, and larger principals of the Word of God support it's universal, unconditional prohibitive meaning. There simply is no real basis for applying the clear prohibitions of Lv. 18 and 20 solely to participation in pagan ceremonies.
Neither should it be held that the only homosexual practice of the nations (that are held in contrast) was that of temple prostitution. What morality is sanctioned by the "temple" (the house of God) sets the standard for all that is under it. If they did such things in the temple you can be sure it happened in the (bath) houses! Lev. 18 and 20 deal with the latter, Dt. 23:17 with the former. If it is stopped in the temple in a theocratic society, all else must follow.
It is such iniquity as we see proscribed in Leviticus 18 that brought about the destruction of the nations Israel displaced, and which, being evil in and of themselves, the Lord therefore warned them not to follow. The same rebellion to the Living and True God and corresponding fleshly indulgence will just as surely bring about the destruction of America as well (from within and without). And it is the same pro-homosexual twisting of the Word of God that by implication must allow for "Christian" practice of the prohibited sins which accompany the injunction against sodomy. Rather we are commanded, "But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof" (Rm. 13:14). And sodomy (as fornication alone) is indeed a work of the flesh.
Neither is it of radical significance (as the pro homosexual thesis requires) that these prohibitions were made against the backdrop of pagan idolatry, for the larger backdrop of the whole Bible is against idolatry in it's broader sense. The list of curses seen in Dt. 28:15-26 begin with "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, ..", yet we cannot say such things as land theft (v. 17) only pertain to formal pagan idolatry.
The 10 commandments themselves are in the context of Israel being a "holy nation" distinct from the Egyptians, yet the holiness of the laws which God gave them transcend mere specific cultural distinction with Egypt. Likewise, when Jesus proscribed "vain repetitions" in prayer (Mt. 6:7), He was not saying such empty rote was wrong only if done to the wrong god, but it was wrong in principle. Simply because many Catholic priests were condemned as pedophiles does not mean that pedophilia is wrong only in the "temple," or if practiced as part of a particular idolatrous religion (sanctioned or not). Rather, such is unconditionally perverse. So it is with homosexual practices as we shall continue to see.
In short, Lev. 18 and 20 both clearly condemn the whole scope of men sexually lying with men, with the latter making it a capital crime. The Levitical prohibitions are not described as simply prohibiting sodomite prostitution.
That related aspect, which is even more grievous, is addressed separately, condemning the same practice within a different and (what should have been) hallowed context. The commands such as we see in Lv. 18 and 20 are not given simply to contrast Israel with other nations, as if for the sake of distinction (like team colors), but because His laws were holy in and of themselves, and the sins of pagan nations inherently evil. Though there are times when something within the moral realm is wrong when done in the wrong time, place or manner, such as premarital sex, the Bible makes this clear and gives evident provision for it's legitimate practice. But unlike the heterosexual relations, in no place does God sanction homosexual relations by marriage (nor by original design) as he does between man and women. And if they cannot marry, they are committing fornication, and no fornicator has any inheritance in Christ (except ye repent ye shall likewise perish - Lk. 13:3..). The ways of the righteous are often contrasted with the ways of the unrighteous, and the particular expression of wickedness has deeper roots (this will be further expanded upon later in dealing with Romans 1).
3. This is an aspect of the above, and is the most common attempt to nullify this clear prohibition against homosexual relations. However, it fails to discern what was ceremonial and what was strictly moral and the basis for each. The fact that eternal moral laws were sometimes mixed with laws which obviously could not be perpetually kept does not allow us to place all laws in one category or the other. The same is true with literal things and symbolisms. One cannot arbitrarily relegating whatever we feel like to ceremonial laws, and the attempt to do so with the prohibitions against homosexual relations will not stand the test of Scripture.
Transcendent moral laws versus typological ceremonial laws.
Under the New Covenant instituted by Christ's sacrificial death for us sinners, we are neither saved by our own righteousness (as under the Law) nor are we enjoined to observe the ceremonial laws according to the letter. Christians "are not under the law" in the sense that in contrast to the Old Covenant, in which justification (a right standing) with God was based of one's obedience in keeping all the law (Dt. 6:25; 27:26; Gal. 3:10). Instead, under the New Covenant the righteousness of Christ - who took and paid for our sins - is imputed (credited) to the sinner upon true repentant faith in the Lord Jesus, thereby giving him a right standing he would never merit. The soul that does truly believe is thereby saved on God/Christ's expense and on His "credit "However, saving faith, if it is true, will have it's outworking in a love-response of obedience to the Lord Jesus. In so doing he will seek both to keep the moral law and the intent of the ceremonial law. Not as sinner seeking to gain acceptance with God by his merit, but from a position of strength as one already "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6), and thus rightly inspired and enabled to live for God! The difference between the ceremonial and strictly moral laws in terms of obedience is that only the latter are enjoined upon believers in Christ. And while we are to seek to fulfil the full intent of moral laws (avoiding adultery in heart, not simply in act, etc.), it is rare that one can obey the intent of the moral law without obeying it in letter. The same is not true of the ceremonial laws. For instance, modern technology allows us to wear clothes of diverse kinds without risking tears that might expose nakedness.
But what just is the ceremonial law, and are the injunctions against homosexual relations part of it? Both questions are answered rather easily in the light of the New Covenant, in which we see that things relating to ritual observance of days, Jewish religious ceremonial practices, and dietary laws, though they had a beneficial effect themselves, were symbolic of things to come. While all 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the New Covenant, there is neither any command given for keeping the Sabbath nor any instance when a mature New Testament church was. The Galatian church is actually chastised by the apostle Paul for it's ritual observance of "days, and months, and times, and years" (Gal. 4:10). And seeing that such laws regarding diet and liturgical days were a figure, or shadow of Christ (as the Body who made the shadow), we are commanded in Colossians 2:16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath." Likewise the regulations regarding "meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances" of the Jewish Temple were things "imposed on them until the time of reformation" (not Luther's but the New Covenant - Heb. 9:10).
The ceremonial laws and moral laws each have distinct characteristics. In short, ceremonial laws related to diet, religious observation of times, religious dress and rites, such as animal sacrifices, circumcision, mixing linen with wool, the wearing of fringed garments, the Aaronic Priesthood and it's rituals. And although they had a beneficial aspect themselves, (Romans 8:4), they had a typological value attached to them pointing men toward Christ and the New Covenant realities. The scapegoat and unblemished animal of Lev. 16:and 17 being a prime examples, both being clearly fulfilled in Christ (Isaiah 53; Mt. 27; 1Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:21-24; 3:18). Moreover, many of the ceremonial laws required the existence of the Jewish Temple and theocracy in order to be obeyed, which Temple was destroyed as Christ predicted. On the other hand, the moral law reflects the immutable holy and omniscient character of God, such as the relationship between man and women revealing the Diving order between the Father and the Son, and between Christ and His church (1Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23 - and which again militates against homosexuals). And as such, they are timeless, with any kind of sexual immorality belonging in the strictly moral category.
Nowhere under the New Covenant are any of the moral laws done away with. Rather they are affirmed, with both sexual immorality between men and women outside of marriage, and as we shall see, sexual relations between men and men are part of the immutable moral law. While Jesus declared that it was out of the heart of man than iniquity was brought forth, He declared that that which the heart brought forth - including "fornications" - to be "evil things" which "defile the man" (Mk. 7:21-23 - and nothing that defileth, shall enter the Heavenly City - Rv. 21:27). Neither are the moral laws dependent upon the existence of the Temple, and other nations were judged for disobeying them (such as Sodom - even according to the homosexual misinterpretation). There is absolutely nothing prophetically typological about the prohibitions against men sexually lying with women, any more than the prohibitions against normal fornication finds any fulfillment in Christ and His church (except that we also are to avoid spiritual fornication as well). Rather they are both moral laws, with the condemnation of such being affirmed under the New Covenant in principal and by precept.
4, The word "sodomy," like many other words translated from original languages, derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated (see Gn. 19 above). Dt. 23:18 calls homosexual prostitutes "dogs," obviously after their shameful manner of relations. The same term was later applied to Gentiles as a whole, perhaps because they were scavengers (Mk. 7:27, 28). In Rv. 22:15, "dogs" representing unbelievers, or sodomites, are forbidden entrance into the Heavenly City of God. The corresponding word which homosexuals prefer for themselves, "gay," is likely derived from a light, effeminate characteristic typical associated with them, (though studies* show the opposite of "gay" is overall true).
5. The word "abomination," applies to both disobedience to God in ceremonial law as well as in moral law. Concerning the latter, all the sins of Lev. 18 (and which are inherently evil) are categorized as abominations (Lev. 18:26), as are the images of false gods(Dt. 7: 25), following false gods (Dt. 12:31; 13:14; 17:4), following witchcraft (Dt. 18:12). Also called an abomination are such things as false weights and balances (Dt. 25:16 and affirmed elsewhere in Proverbs), repentance (Pro. 13:19), the sacrifice, way and thoughts of the wicked (Prov. 15:8, 9 26), the proud in heart (Prov. 16:5), he that justifieth the wicked [such as sodomites do], and condemneth the just [as they do to them that reprove them: Prov. 17:15], those that will not hear the Law of God (Prov. 28:9) and , "a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" Prov. 6:17-19). Homosexual practices are indeed just that, an abomination, as well as the insolent proud look that justifies it.
Duet. 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
The Hebrew word for sodomite (found 6 times in the O.T.) , qa^de^sh (kaw-dashe') literally means a sacred (set apart) person, and at worst means a male temple prostitute, and not "loving monogamous sexual unions with the persons same gender."
As conclusively shown before, the condemnation of sodomy cannot be restricted to homosexual practices in pagan temples, as we see the good kings of Israel commended for driving such "out of the land" (1Ki. 15:12), and not simply out of the Temple. Jehoshaphat even broke down their houses (2Ki. 23:7).
That which is done in the Temple represents the highest sanction, and while Lev. 18:22 as well as other passages in both the O.T and N.T condemn sodomy in general, homosexual temple prostitution is specifically singled here out as it presumes the highest religious sanction of a sin which is against God's natural order, a sanction that would set the standard for all other authorities to follow. This "holy" sanction is what the sodomite movement seeks today in demanding not simply civil unions recognized by the government, but the more religious title of marriage, which the Bible recognizes as only between a man and a woman. There simply is no basis for anything else.
Nowhere in the Bible are homosexual relationships honored by God.
The relationship between Ruth and Naomi is one of two lesbians. Ruth 1:14 says that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" (KJV) is the same word used to description heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
David and Jonathan relationship was also homoerotic , as in 1 Samuel 18:3-4; 18:20-21, 4;2Sam. 1:26.
Once again we see vain attempts at eisegesis (reading into the text, not out of it), which depend upon ignorance of the immediate context, as well as that of the culture in which the events took place. In the first instance the same Hebrew word for clave (ayth) is also used in commanding us to cleave unto God (Dt. 10:20; 11:22, 13:4), or to describe how their enemies of Israel pursued them (1Sam. 14:22). 2Sam. 20:2 declares that the men of tribe of Judah "clave unto their King" (who had many wives). And even Ruth's future husband (Boaz) even tells her to "keep fast (cleave) by my young men" (Ruth 2:8,,21). Does the homo-apologist suppose "clave" in these instances means sexually? Would Ruth, a "virtuous women (3:11), be told by her future husband to cleave to the young men in the way homosexuals have her doing to Naomi? Furthermore, she was seeking a husband! Reading these instances in context easily reveals that such cleaving means sticking close in non sexual ways (cf. 2:23).
In the second instance the relationship between David and Jonathan is ignorantly (or diabolically) purported to be sexual, despite the fact that God, who does not bow down to culture ("Learn not the way of the heathen"), never sanctions such, as he does between man and woman by marriage. More on this later.
First, let us consider the overall context:
Saul, Israel's first king, fails critical leadership tests and David is chosen by God to be his replacement, and is therefore anointed by the prophet Samuel. David slays the giant Goliath (1Sam. 17), and proves himself a mighty warrior and gains Jonathan esteem and covenanted friendship, as well as Israel's praises (Ch. 18). Saul would quickly become jealous, and for a few years the future King David would be found escaping Saul's attempts, though David could have slain him. But it was in the wilderness that David learned to really pray (read the Psalms) and depend on the Lord. And early on the help of one on the "inside" would prove Providential. David would finally realize the Kingdom, but not until not only Saul but also Davids closest and dearest friend died.
At the subsequent meeting after slaying Goliath with King Saul, Saul's son, Jonathan, fellowships with this Godly hero who was zealous for the glory of the LORD. Being uniquely of like heart, spirit and calling, their fellowship must continue. "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants." (1Sam. 8:1-5).
Without any real warrant from Scripture, those who lust to find some evidence of approved homosexual relations suppose they find it here. First they think “knit” means to be homoerotic as they are, as they seem to have trouble conceiving of true brotherly love that is nonsexual. Many soldiers have had precious war buddy's who would lay their life down for them (but not their bodies sexually), as Jonathan basically did for David. Grammatically, the word "knit" is never used sexually, but rather it denotes to be of one heart and soul, "as one man" as in Judges 20:1. Likewise in 1Chrn. 12:16, 17 the tribes Benjamin and Judah are said to be knit with King David (and no, they were not homosexual tribes!). Even more closely, the same word is used to describe Jacobs love for his son Benjamin (Gn. 44: 30). It's most prevalent use is in the negative sense, as conspiracy (1Sam. 22:13); in that case also denoting a nonsexual soul-bond.
Neither can we read a sexual connotation into "loved him as his own soul." Soul basically means life. In all 753 instances of the Hebrew word there is nothing sexual about it. Jonathan loved David as his own life, as we are commanded by the Lord to do. In Genesis 44:30 we see that Jacob's life was bound up in the life of his child. Deuteronomy 13:6 speaks about family members which can be as dear to us as our own soul, and we dare not make all such pathos sexual. Though relatively rare, there have been many bonds of friendships similar to David and Jonathan's in which there was nothing sexual. The love of Christ for His disciples, and of most of theirs for Him (especially Peter and John's) is an example of such soul love, and only the most blind and vile soul dare require that there must be something sexual therein.
In David and Johnathan's case, it is reasonable to surmise that Jonathan, who also had some fame as a daring warrior (1Sam. 13:3; 14), but who was conspicuously absent in confronting Goliath, sees David as the bold yet humble hero that he was. David was a man who obviously loved God and showed it in action. Likely the king's son was yearning for such a fellow soldier as David showed himself to be, and found in David one of unique likeness of heart for God and in battle. And so Jonathan enters into a covenant with him, the making of which, distinct from marriage, was not uncommon in that world (the word is used 285 times in the O.T.). They made another one in 1Sam. 23:18, and it affirmed family type loyalty, which stood in clear contrast to that of Saul. Early Christians are said to have entered into a covenant daily with each other, never to lie, or betray one another, etc., and by which each party pledged mutual trust. It is also of note that, previous to this, "when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him" (1Sam. 14:52) as part of his army. Like father like son. Johnathan saw in David a strong and valiant man, and a true comrade, whose friendship and place in the kingdom of Saul must be assured.
However, what about Jonathan giving his robe, his garments, "even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1Sam. 18:4) to David? Here the imagination of the natural mind (1Cor. 2:14) of homosexuals, who suppose this to be erotic, must be subject to the Word of God (2Cor. 10:5).
What meaneth this? Why would Jonathan give David his clothes? The answer is easily seen.
David had just come from came his job as a keeper of sheep, no lofty position, and one that placed him in humble shepherd's clothing, which would have set him apart from the rest of the royal household. In stark contrast, Jonathan was the heir to the throne and as such was clothed accordingly. And Saul "would let him [David] go no more home to his father's house" (1Sam. 18:2), Jonathan therefore, quickly acts (perhaps impulsively, but as a true friend), to rectify the situation at his own expense, removing his outer garments (it does not say David did the same) to hand to David.
The details are noteworthy. Instead of the clothes of a poor Shepard, Jonathan gives David his royal robe and garments, which would make him more fit for a job as a courtier (an attendant at the court of a sovereign). And instead of a shepherd's scrip, Jonathan gives David a girdle (either a belt or a sash); and instead of a slingshot, David receives a sword and bow, and garments befitting a soldier in the army of the king. The fact that David now would wear the same garments as the heir to the throne wore not only insured greater acceptance by the rest of the royal staff, but it also indicated what would eventually follow (David would take the throne, not Jonathan).
Thus far there is nothing that warrants anything different than exceptional, but holy affection between two Godly and like-hearted spiritual brothers and warriors in the kingdom of God. It is quite obvious that the purpose of Jonathan removing some of his garments (they did wear under garments) was to unselfishly (and prophetically) give them to David for his new position, not for any erotic purpose. As for David, he removes nothing.
But what of two chapters later, where we read "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam 20:41). Is this erotic?
The context is that of David leaving the house of Saul. For sometime now his days were numbered, with jealous King Saul (jealous because of Davids fame as a warrior), more than once trying to pin him to the wall with a javelin. Jonathan has warned David of Saul's mind toward him, and incurring the displeasure of Saul himself by his loyalty to David. Now Jonathan gives him a sign by way of a lad shooting arrows. Like the apostle Paul in Acts 20:38, they shall see each others face no more. And like Paul's departure, it is marked by tears and kisses of brotherly affection: .. and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (1Sam. 20:41). "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him" (Acts 20:37). " This was a fairly common but nonsexual sign of affection in that culture, as it is may be today. Christians are exhorted, "Greet one another with an holy kiss" (2Cor. 13:12). Only by insisting to see what one wants to see can contrary conclusions be drawn, based upon the plain evidence.
Finally, we have the poetic description of Jonathan's precious love in David's lament over his death. "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2Sam. 1:25, 26). Johnathan has died with his father in battle, leaving behind as least one child (2Sam. 4:4; 9:3-6), and David loses an exceptional and holy friendship that was proved in the most trying time of his life.
But while those who are intent on finding some evidence of sexual love between men hope to find it here, neither the use of the word "pleasant" (which can even describe land - Gn. 49:15) or that the love of Jonathan surpassed that of women necessarily denotes anything sexual. That is unless one cannot conceive of such brotherly affection as being nonsexual, which seems to be the problem. This is nothing to warrant equating pathos (deep human emotions) with eros (sexual love) here, and the burden of proof is upon those that would do so to prove such. Souls that are utterly dependent on each other necessitate loyalty, and though it is rare to find men whose heart is so loyally knit together in heart, mind and purposes that it is greater than with those whom they are joined with physically, yet it does happen, and it is aptly expressed as David did here. An old saying. "Friendship produces an entire sameness; it is one soul in two bodies: a friend is another self"(Clarke), is quite applicable in this case.
Furthermore, the heterosexual nature of both Jonathan and David is testified to b the fact that they were both married to women, and had children by such. David's sexuality in particular is further affirmed not only by his many wives, but also (though in a negative context), by his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. It is clearly evident that it was not men that David married, but women, and it not a man that he was sexually attracted to, but a woman (2Sam. 11).
All that has been said must be seen with the realization that God has no difficulty making it clear when love between man and women is sexual. Such instances abound, and require no reading into the texts things that are not there. And as God contradicts established norms and cultures in revealing what is best for man, so we can expect that if in fact homosexual relations were good, then the Lord would make it just as manifest that men lying with men was sanctified, just as with women. But there is no such thing. No instances when a man sexually "knew" another man as with women, except a an example of a damnable event. No instance when it is said a man took another man to wife, or was married to one, as it often says of taking a women. And no real instance of approved romantic-sexual love between men, despite the desire by some see such.
Instead, while David's expression of his friendship with Jonathan was the greatest one in the Old Testament concerning male to male relationships, David's remembrance stands in clear contrast to the greatest expression of male to female love by the latter's inclusion of the element which is utterly missing from Davids description, that of erotic love. From way before the time of Christ the Song of Solomon has stood as the epitome of romantic love between man and woman, and NOTHING like it is given us even among the closest male to male Biblical relationships. And in it the male to female compatibility is exalted, lovingly, romantically, and sexually.
There are other attempts purporting to find some intimation of homosexual relationships in the Bible, but they are so lacking in substance that i will not presently take the time to expose them, suffice to say that it is distressing to see souls so desirous to find evidence for God-sanctioned homo-erotic relationships that they read into texts conclusions which simply are not unwarranted.
Is this absence of homo-erotic relationships and of homosexual marriage because it would have been hard for other cultures to accept homosexuality? Is God bound by culture so that He leaves out something that is essential for man's well-being, as homosexuals purport their relationships to be? No, not in any way. If anything it was the other cultures who practiced homosexual relationships and were judged by God for such. The list of sins in Lv. 18 for instance were things in which all the nations were defiled by, and which God cast out before them (Lv. 18:25). Under the New Covenant, while men such as Paul adapted to culture in the amoral realm, he preached against fleshly immorality, and warned that fornicators and "abusers of themselves with mankind," would keep one out of the Kingdom of God (while this verse (1Cor. 9-10) and 1Tim. 1:10 and the meaning of "Arsenokoitai" and "Malakoi" could also be examined - and which i believe speak of homosexuals - in this treatise i am mainly focusing on the main texts concerning homosexual relations.
Moving therefore onto the Book of Romans in New Testament, we see one the clearest condemnations of homosexual relationships in the entire Bible.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;. Romans 1:22-28).
1. This only pertains to sexual abuse, as slaves were often forced to commit homosexual acts. It does not apply to consensual relationships.
2. This means that if you were born heterosexual, it would be wrong and unnatural for you to engage in homosexual relations.
3. This only has to do with religious idolatrous practices, and not with consensual relationships.
1. This is pure eisegesis, as a careful reading of the text neither explicitly or implicitly conveys such an idea. Rather it deals with the causes and effects of the general degeneration of man, not practices within a specific institution, and which context shall be expanded upon under #3. But the fact that it is clearly said that men "burned in their lust one toward another;" shows it not to be forced activity, but indeed consensual.
Again, there is nothing to suggest such a strange interpretation: Paul does not say or intimate that normally heterosexual men were somehow denying their natural proclivity, but rather that men left "the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly," or unnatural; and received in their own defiled bodies their just punishment. They were, after all, doing what they had been delivered over to. All souls have sinful desires, and the fact that we are born with sinful desires in no way justifies our acting them out. God gives us grace self control and even deliverance, but the more one yields to sin to more he is taken captive by it. And Jesus came to set the captives free who truly want Him. But for those who resist His Spirit there is a point of no return after which they cannot, being reprobate (Rm. 1:28; 2Cor. 13:5-7; 2Tim., 3:8; Titus 1:16). May you who who read this "harden not your heart" but instead "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts," and decide you want Jesus rather than sin, and so truly receive and follow Jesus who died for you, and rose again!
This hearkens back to the supposition that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is only condemning homosexual acts that are done in conjunction with pagan temple idolatry. However, not only do those texts stand on their own, but these passages here also apply to man in general. Both the preceding verses leading up to the section condemning homosexual practices and those proceeding from it make this clear. The section specifically dealing with homosexuality is part of Paul's declaration of the gospel of Christ, which idolatry and homosexual relations are in contrast with, and continues the theme of obedience to revealed truth and blessing and accountability versus disobedience and deception. Beginning in verse 18, we are warned that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," truth which is revealed by nature (God's creation), as well as by the explicit revelation of His written revelation (the Word of God, the Bible). And here it will be noted that it is a natural observation that men are physically designed for sexual compatibility with women and not with men (and again, male and female complementary compatibility does not end there). The Holy Spirit then reveals the progressive steps of degeneration, proceeding from rejection of truth and leading to men working that which is unseemly, or against nature. It is not dealing with homosexual temple prostitution, but with consensual general homosexual relations working that is against nature, not simply against "ritual purity." The text then goes to overall list other fruits of the reprobate mind which are manifest to various degrees, .and are the result of resisting the truth of the One True God (relative to the degree they do), as those do who who seek to wrest the Scriptures to fit their unholy ends.
According to this theme, Romans chapter 2 will go on to show that the Gentiles - encompassing all outside the Nation of Israel - had the essence of the Law of God written in their heart. And as other texts show, God is a rewarded of them that diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). And thus when men truly want the Truth, when they wholeheartedly want the Light, then, like Cornelius (Acts 10), they will truly hear Christ and receive Him as their Lord and Savior. The opposite is true for those who do not (Jn. 3:19-21).
The principal of degeneration seen in Romans 1 is that when man rejects the natural revelation God gives them, then they become progressively more blind. They seek to make God after an image more to their own fleshly liking (and render the Bible likewise) - which homo-apologists have effectively done in this case - and eventually in their rebellion become given over to their own fleshly lusts. The fact that the sinful practices of Romans 1 are shown to proceed out of formal idolatry does not mean that such vile physical practices are condemned only if they are conjoined with such evident idolatry, rather it shows perversity as an effect of idolatry, which can take many forms. We may detail the steps of degeneration that led Germany to follow Hitler, but that does not mean the end result is only wrong if done as part of such manifest "idolatry," and or in obedience to such an idol. As said before, pedophilia is not simply wrong if a priest does it, but the act is wrong at anytime by anyone.
While the attempt to make the condemnation of consensual homoerotic relations that of only pagan idolatry is a vain one, the fact which Romans makes clear is that idolatry leads to progressive degrees of blindness and captivating and devastating sin. The truth is, all sin is a manifestation of idolatry. The first commandment is to love the God of the Bible with all we've got (Dt. 6:4). If we do so we will neither be following after false gods nor doing the things which are the result of such. And idolatry is not limited to formal deities. Whenever we worship/obey an idea of deity that is made like to corruptible man, being the fruit of the carnal mind (which is "not subject to the law of God" - Rm. 8:7 - as homosexuality is not), then we are in fact guilty of idolatry.
Whatever we live for at any given time is our god at that time. Whether it be "the lust of the flesh" [sensual pleasures], or "the lust of the eyes" [possessions], or "the pride of life" [prestige-ego fulfillment], it is all idolatry whenever they become our chief love and or source of security. Only God is almighty and eternal, whereas the rest are finite created things that cannot deliver us nor truly satisfy the soul. But Jesus is the Bread of Life, and as He promised "he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst" (Jn. 6:35).
And he who writes these things testifies that such "is truth and is no lie." My basic soul hunger was and is satisfied since i truly repented and received the Lord Christ at age 25 (though i was brought up "religious"- Catholic). His Spirit came in me and changed my heart in ways i never thought needed changing. I do, however, need and must seek for more and more heart rig