• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Female Vs Male Homosexuality

I could be guilty of messing with semantics here, but this is an example of what I'm asserting:
  • Most everything can be defined as either being right or wrong.
  • It is not right to break the law.
  • It's wrong to break the law.
  • Engaging in polygamy is breaking the law.
  • Therefore, polygamy is wrong.
  • However, it has not been defined by God as sinful.
  • Therefore, polygamy is not sinful.
Perhaps another way to put it is that sin is a category of behavior that is mostly a subset of what is wrong, because many things are wrong that aren't sinful, given that we don't turn our back on God when we behave in those ways.

I would therefore rest easy in comforting ourselves with the knowledge that sometimes, given the nuanced complexity of life's choices, the better choice will involve simultaneously doing something that is wrong but that is not sinful.

Some governments place restrictions on whether or not you can own a Bible. In this case I believe you are asserting that it would be wrong to own a Bible but not a sin? To say something is wrong is to say that it is the wrong decision. In other words, if it is between God's law and man's law, God's law will be the only right decision and therefore not wrong or sinful. While Jesus commanded Christians to obey local law, the governing law of countries, states, and cities only has authority up until it contradicts God's law. Therefore when local authority contradicts the law of God, it becomes wrong and sinful to follow that law. Right and wrong can only coincide with God's definition of right and wrong.
 
Some governments place restrictions on whether or not you can own a Bible. In this case I believe you are asserting that it would be wrong to own a Bible but not a sin? To say something is wrong is to say that it is the wrong decision. In other words, if it is between God's law and man's law, God's law will be the only right decision and therefore not wrong or sinful. While Jesus commanded Christians to obey local law, the governing law of countries, states, and cities only has authority up until it contradicts God's law. Therefore when local authority contradicts the law of God, it becomes wrong and sinful to follow that law. Right and wrong can only coincide with God's definition of right and wrong.
Ah, but then what do you do with the people who don't believe in God and follow the law to not own a Bible even though they might want to read one in order to see what all the fuss was about? Are they then wrong because obeying the law contradicts God's law?

I think some of you are arguing for a position of simplification that doesn't represent the complexity of the world our Creator created. Otherwise, we wouldn't need a bunch of extra words for explaining morality, ethics, etc. There would just be right and wrong -- no need for the burdensome extra word 'sin.'
 
@Keith Martin, I think you're confusing the issue by conflating the terms "right" and "wrong" with "legal" and "illegal". Just because a government makes a law, does not make something right or wrong. It makes it legal or illegal. Something can be both legal and right, legal and wrong, illegal and right, or illegal and wrong. The two are fundamentally independent concepts (they SHOULD correlate, but as long as laws are made by fallible humans, they will remain independent).
 
I'm not conflating anything. You're actually expanding on my point. More nuance. If 'sin' and 'wrong' were synonymous, then we would have no need for two different words. Distinctions exist among righteousness vs. sin, right vs. wrong, legal vs. illegal, ethical vs. unethical, pure vs. impure. Right vs. wrong is perhaps the most broad of the dichotomies. Sin simply doesn't cover everything that is wrong. You yourself have argued earlier that anal sex isn't sinful, because it's not addressed directly by Scripture. I'm not going to take a position on that. A less controversial example would be the existence of one-way streets in cities. Signs even exist in many such locations to indicate that attempting to drive in the opposite direction is the "Wrong Way." And, no doubt, it's typically a foolish move. But could we label driving the wrong way on a one-way street is sinful?

Conversely, what does one do when one finds oneself in a dilemma in which choosing to avoid one sin will almost certainly mean choosing to commit a lesser sin? Which would be wrong or right?: choosing to murder someone about to embark upon mass genocide who was going to spare you? Or choosing to remain 'sin-free' by just standing by and letting it happen?
 
I do actually agree with your general point I think. I tend to class things on a spectrum, for instance sin - inadvisable - neutral - advisable - mandatory. I would however put male homosexuality at a different position on that spectrum.

There's a whole lot of stuff that's inadvisable, but not sinful (smoking tobacco for instance). Driving the wrong way on a one-way street would fall into the same category - you might actually do it sometimes (e.g. to reverse to a driveway you accidentally missed, when there is no traffic) and have no pangs of conscience because you know it's not sinful, just a practical regulation that exists for a practical purpose that is irrelevant in your specific circumstances.
 
To me this would open up a whole new can of worms about obedience to governing authorities. In my opinion, purposefully driving on a one way street in most cases would be a sin. We are instructed in Scripture to obey the governing authority. So, if the governing authority commands us to only drive one way on a certain street, and obeying that command wouldn't oppose our Biblical commands, for us to drive the wrong way would be knowingly going against local government and thus also breaking the law of God. If the government stated that you couldn't have children or worship with other believers, it would be both wrong and sinful to obey that law. It wouldn't be wrong to go against that law. Also, a Christian's ethics should be built on the foundation of scripture and what you believe God would want you to do in certain situations. I have never come across or heard of a situation where someone chose to disobey God and was right for doing so, nor have I come across a situation where someone did wrong and was righteous before God.
 
Last edited:
To me this would open up a whole new can of worms about obedience to governing authorities. In my opinion, purposefully driving on a one way street in most cases would be a sin.
I think you are missing the point. I did not suggest it was right to purposefully break the law, but rather that you would have "no pangs of conscience" in technically breaking a minor regulation in a manner that harms nobody, which demonstrates this is not sinful.

To stick with the one-way-street illustration, have you ever accidentally turned into a one-way-street the wrong way? I have, once, in a busy city. It was a nerve-wracking experience - quickly working out how to shift the car around in a way that would avoid an accident and get back into the correct flow of traffic. It was adrenaline-inducing because of the risk of a crash - but once I was back in the flow of traffic, I felt no "pang of conscience". I felt no need to repent for a sin. I had simply made an honest mistake, that had fortunately had no negative consequences, and that was the end of it.

Have you ever willfully crossed a one-way street from one driveway to another, in a way that involves moving slightly up the road because the opposing driveway is a few feet in the "wrong" direction? If so, would you feel like a sinner and repent for your sin? Or, in that situation, would you obey the law to the letter and drive around the entire block to avoid the tiniest risk of violating the regulation?

The government makes so many regulations these days that it's impossible to even know them all, let alone follow them 100%. Think about the "social distancing" rules that have been applied wherever you live over the past few months - do you even know the details of them all? Do you know precisely which ones are legally enforceable, and which ones are recommendations? If the government says "keep 2m distance between yourself and strangers", do you really know if this is law or suggestion? Do you know the precise day it changed from being permissible to illegal, and back again? If violating it risks a fine, or imprisonment, or nothing? If that is the law, and you intentionally pass someone in a supermarket aisle only 1m away, do you feel you have sinned and need to repent for it?

If you urinated on public property (e.g. a tree in a park) because the public toilets were closed due to the lockdown and you had no other option, was that a sin? Did you repent for it?

That would be a horrible existence if we were conscious of sin every time we broke one of the myriads of tiny little regulations that every government floods into our lives. I think most people are more pragmatic than this - including most police officers.

The government is God's minister to enforce His Law (specifically "love thy neighbour as thyself" - serious laws against theft, murder etc). It is sin to disobey the government in such important matters. But it is gets a bit ridiculous if you take this so far that it defies common sense.
 
Last edited:
To me this would open up a whole new can of worms about obedience to governing authorities. In my opinion, purposefully driving on a one way street in most cases would be a sin. We are instructed in Scripture to obey the governing authority. So, if the governing authority commands us to only drive one way on a certain street, and obeying that command wouldn't oppose our Biblical commands, for us to drive the wrong way would be knowingly going against local government and thus also breaking the law of God.

If I follow this line of thinking, wouldn’t one need to avoid plural marriage because the law restricts it and having more than one wife is not required by scripture?
 
The government is God's minister to enforce His Law

It might help perspective to realize that YHWH never authorized man to create law. Even Israelite kings were only authorized to minister His law, not turning aside to the right or the left.

The scriptures tell us He IS government. YHWH is judge king and lawgiver. Man recognizing any other authority is how we got into this mess. "You will be like God knowing good and evil" (deciding what is right and wrong by making their own laws instead if obeying His.) History repeats ad nauseam.

According to the preacher (eclesiastes) fearing YHWH and keeping His commands is the whole duty of man.

Thou shalt have no other gods (judge king or lawgiver) before me. (Supplanting or over ruling? Adding or taking away?? =Abomination that makes desolate!! in my opinion.
 
What's interesting is that Romans 13 describing the biblical definition of true government does not mention breaking laws or committing crimes, but doing good and evil. The only authority any government has is derived from good and evil: they only have the authority to say No to what God has said No to. God says, "Do good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." So when you marry more than one wife, and someone's not happy, that's not your true government talking with authority from God, just confused or outright evil people who have far overstepped rightful governing into oppression and dictatorship, which we may obey for the same reason Jesus paid some token tribute money, though he told Peter it was actually not right that it was asked for.

And for those who talk about things like traffic regulations, here's a thought: owning roads has nothing to do with bearing the sword against evildoers: roads should be private property, and as such if the owner allows you to come on his land and use his road, he has the right to set any terms and conditions he wants, even saying that only pink cars are allowed on his road. But really once private companies have the roads, they have to compete with each other to make both safe and easy to follow regulations, or else they go out of business.
 
What's interesting is that Romans 13 describing the biblical definition of true government does not mention breaking laws or committing crimes, but doing good and evil. The only authority any government has is derived from good and evil: they only have the authority to say No to what God has said No to. God says, "Do good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." So when you marry more than one wife, and someone's not happy, that's not your true government talking with authority from God, just confused or outright evil people who have far overstepped rightful governing into oppression and dictatorship, which we may obey for the same reason Jesus paid some token tribute money, though he told Peter it was actually not right that it was asked for.

And for those who talk about things like traffic regulations, here's a thought: owning roads has nothing to do with bearing the sword against evildoers: roads should be private property, and as such if the owner allows you to come on his land and use his road, he has the right to set any terms and conditions he wants, even saying that only pink cars are allowed on his road. But really once private companies have the roads, they have to compete with each other to make both safe and easy to follow regulations, or else they go out of business.
Romans 13:1 says: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
This verse is specifically talking about subjecting ourselves to powers that he has ordained. If not our government, than what power could it be? As I stated before, if the laws of our government contradict the law of Christ, we choose the law of Christ. What power is God ordaining in this verse?
 
There is a difference between power and authority. The translators paid by king James would certainly never bite the hand that paid them. That version is the first ever government approved and produced bible. The apostles preached a new KING! This is why they were opposed by the powers in control at the time. Even those who opposed Yeshua/Jesus did so because they were afraid the powers that were in control would take away their "place and nation," meaning they had no confidence that doing right would give them the victory.

Look at the book Bible Law vs the US Constitution if you really want an eye opening look into what YHWH authorized in contrast to what monstrous oppression man creates.
 
T
There is a difference between power and authority. The translators paid by king James would certainly never bite the hand that paid them. That version is the first ever government approved and produced bible. The apostles preached a new KING! This is why they were opposed by the powers in control at the time. Even those who opposed Yeshua/Jesus did so because they were afraid the powers that were in control would take away their "place and nation," meaning they had no confidence that doing right would give them the victory.

Look at the book Bible Law vs the US Constitution if you really want an eye opening look into what YHWH authorized in contrast to what monstrous oppression man creates.
Thank you for the book recommendation, it sounds interesting. It sounds like you are saying that the KJV is not accurate because they altered scripture to appease the king. If this is the case, then we can't trust anything the KJV says as it was all written as a fearful reaction of the interpreters. Either way, if "powers" doesn't mean "authorities" than what God ordained powers are we talking about?
 
if "powers" doesn't mean "authorities" than what God ordained powers are we talking about?

The difference is power is force. Someone might have the power to take the life of an innocent man, but that is not authorized by YHWH. Authority means they are acting in accordance with what YHWH, the supreme authority, has said is right. Romans 13 has a word translated power in the kjv that actually means authority.

Huge difference.

As a cowboy I know once put it. "All legislation is legislating morality. The difference is that God's law is His morality and man's laws are man's morality."

Man's laws so called are actually the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness) Paul speaks of because they elevate man's ideas above the knowlege (wisdom and laws) of God.
 
The difference is power is force. Someone might have the power to take the life of an innocent man, but that is not authorized by YHWH. Authority means they are acting in accordance with what YHWH, the supreme authority, has said is right. Romans 13 has a word translated power in the kjv that actually means authority.

Huge difference.

As a cowboy I know once put it. "All legislation is legislating morality. The difference is that God's law is His morality and man's laws are man's morality."

Man's laws so called are actually the mystery of iniquity (lawlessness) Paul speaks of because they elevate man's ideas above the knowlege (wisdom and laws) of God.
I understand that if the law of the government doesn't coincide with the law of God than it would be wrong(lawlessness). But I would still like to know what "Authority" has been ordained by God in Romans 13. This chapter leaves no question as to whether God ordained an authority, the question is which authority He ordained. Also, the minor laws such as one way streets, speed limits, laws about drinking and driving, etc are created for the purpose of protecting you and your neighbor. These laws do not contradict scripture so how can you argue that we as a people have no right to make basic laws for protection and to improve our quality of life? It sounds like you all believe yourselves to be above the governing laws all together. But if the government was ordained by God as a means to maintain life and to uphold His law, than are we not obligated to follow these laws? If I have misunderstood anyone's position please tell me.
So if God ordained the government as a means to uphold His morals, than unless those laws go against scripture, they are in accordance with it. If they are in accordance with Scripture, than to not obey these laws would be a sin in the eyes of God.
 
Last edited:
God ordained the government
Yes, Rom.13:1 is quite clear; "...the authorities that exist are appointed by God." Governments have authority in the same way a father has authority over his family as it is appointed by God. Father's have the right to make rules for their households and governing authorities have the right make rules for their subjects/people. However, neither fathers, governments, nor any other institution, have the right to exceed their God given authority commanding things which contradict what God says. We respond just as the apostles did in Acts 5:29, But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men."
 
The only thing clear is an abandonment of sex with men.
Those words add to scripture what’s not written. There is nothing in that verse that reflects abandonment of sex with men. My studies align with @Joleneakamama in this matter. Others feel it reflects female/female relations. The context of the second of those two verses leads me to believe it is talking about anal sex, which aligns with unnatural use.
 
I'm going to have to see a lot of proof for that one @Keith Martin consider me one who is not only skeptical but I think you are flat wrong. As far as the original Hebrew text I'm curious if @IshChayil can add some clarity?
Sorry I'm late responding pac, I haven't wanted to be active on the site lately.

So I have translated & commented on the book of Leviticus on my own (unpublished); Leviticus has peculiar vocabulary and mastering the Hebrew of the book takes additional effort over narrative books in the Torah such as Genesis or Exodus. Here I'll provide a hyper-literal translation so there can't be any wiggle room for saying the prohibition has any indication of kin relations or the such. I'll use a / when multiple interpretations are possible and brackets [] when I want to clarify the nuanced meaning an italics to provide words absent in the Hebrew but necessary in English to be fluid.
So here's the original text:
וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תֹּועֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מֹ֥ות יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃
When/and a man who lays down /(will lay down) [to have sex] with a male, as one layings down of a woman; the two of them have made/done an abomination/detestable thing/abhorrence; they shall definitely be executed; their bloodshed is against/in them.

More fluid:
When a man lays down with a male as one lays with a woman, it is a detestable thing which the two of them have done; they must be executed for their own blood-guilt is against them.


The text is very specific with the language zakhar meaning male. The specific language makes the ban clear across the human species regardless of covenant affiliation. Had another word been chosen then we could suppose it was kin (we have words for this in Hebrew), or an outsider, or just an Israeli, etc. The prohibition is quite clear in Hebrew that there is a death penalty for homosexual behavior between males.
*** 1 edit within 60 seconds after posting***
 
I understand that if the law of the government doesn't coincide with the law of God than it would be wrong(lawlessness). But I would still like to know what "Authority" has been ordained by God in Romans 13. This chapter leaves no question as to whether God ordained an authority, the question is which authority He ordained. Also, the minor laws such as one way streets, speed limits, laws about drinking and driving, etc are created for the purpose of protecting you and your neighbor. These laws do not contradict scripture so how can you argue that we as a people have no right to make basic laws for protection and to improve our quality of life? It sounds like you all believe yourselves to be above the governing laws all together. But if the government was ordained by God as a means to maintain life and to uphold His law, than are we not obligated to follow these laws? If I have misunderstood anyone's position please tell me.
So if God ordained the government as a means to uphold His morals, than unless those laws go against scripture, they are in accordance with it. If they are in accordance with Scripture, than to not obey these laws would be a sin in the eyes of God.
I think the Apostle is walking a tight rope so his message is more nuanced as a result.
On the one hand he clearly recognizes the absolute wickedness that was / is Rome.
On the other hand, many Jews, slaves, etc. under Roman authority are coming to the faith (and will be slaughtered for this).
Paul recognizes the pakuach-nefesh (life-risk) that these believers face and is instructing them to not rebel needlessly; while also understanding his letters will be read by the wicked authorities in power.
So he makes a legal decision to not put believers at risk and to calm down the authorities and their spies. Message:
Dear authorities, we are not planning a revolt against Rome; look I even tell slaves to submit to their masters. Dear believers, since all things work for the good of those who believe, even your current suffering/situation including the wicked tyranny of Rome and other pagan states is an opportunity for you to shine and win others to the faith.
This is a norm in Judaism, averting a life-risk for the flock. To take these verses and use them to claim civil disobedience is never called for is a misapplication of Paul's rabbinical perspective.
*** edit within 120 seconds of posting***
I'm not sure what moral authority Paul would have allowed a nation with laws authorizing the murders of millions babies...
 
Back
Top